Please note:The SCons wiki is now restored from the attack in March 2013. All old passwords have been invalidated. Please reset your password if you have an account. If you note missing pages, please report them to webmaster@scons.org. Also, new account creation is currently disabled due to an ongoing spam flood (2013/08/27).
   1 14:17:31 *	techtonik (~chatzilla@2607:f298:2:107:230:48ff:fecb:9f0b) has joined #scons
   2 16:51:27 *	garyo (~garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   3 16:59:09 <garyo>	hi folks
   4 17:00:19 *	Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@12.18.240.224) has joined #scons
   5 17:00:23 <GregNoel>	Hi, guys...
   6 17:00:31 <Jason_at_Intel>	hello
   7 17:01:04 *	sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-efogesqhruhwxpwv) has joined #scons
   8 17:01:25 <Jason_at_Intel>	Hello Steve!
   9 17:01:31 <sgk>	hey Jason_at_intel
  10 17:01:33 <sgk>	hi GregNoel
  11 17:01:37 <GregNoel>	hi
  12 17:01:38 <sgk>	who else is here?
  13 17:01:41 <GregNoel>	garyo
  14 17:05:39 <GregNoel>	Are we ready?  1910 is first.
  15 17:07:01 <GregNoel>	I agree with Gary's comment; should we make that the consensus?
  16 17:06:48 <garyo>	Looks like 1910 is Steven's if he has a patch to start on it with
  17 17:07:53 <sgk>	yeah, i consider it a definite bug
  18 17:08:16 <sgk>	this is one of a bunch of issues where i have half-finished stabs at fixes
  19 17:08:21 <sgk>	or at least additional investigation
  20 17:08:26 <sgk>	sitting in various working directories
  21 17:08:21 <GregNoel>	I like the approach of creating a test and then implementing to suit...  Good practice.
  22 17:08:40 <sgk>	i have a test case, and most of a fix, but additional tests break
  23 17:08:38 <garyo>	ok, you rough it out & put the code in the ticket?
  24 17:08:54 <sgk>	right, when i hand these back
  25 17:08:59 <GregNoel>	Put that in the issue and assign to Gary?
  26 17:09:24 <sgk>	sure
  27 17:09:17 <garyo>	sure, as long as it's 2.x.  I won't get to it in the next few weeks.
  28 17:09:07 <sgk>	i should at least pack up my in-progress work and attach a patch
  29 17:09:19 <sgk>	if i haven't time to polish it off myself
  30 17:09:39 <sgk>	and maybe i get to it sooner, but at least the progress gets recorded to help whoever gets there first
  31 17:09:46 <garyo>	good plan.
  32 17:09:52 <GregNoel>	ok, I'll leave it to sgk to assign, as soon as he's added the info
  33 17:09:58 <sgk>	will do
  34 17:09:58 <sgk>	done
  35 17:10:01 <GregNoel>	done
  36 17:10:12 <GregNoel>	2361 consensus
  37 17:10:15 <sgk>	done
  38 17:10:20 <GregNoel>	780
  39 17:10:42 <garyo>	Could be a warning flag, on by default, but tests turn it off?
  40 17:10:43 <sgk>	similar to 1910, i'll upload a partial-fix patch and document what tests fail
  41 17:10:52 <sgk>	probably should fix the unit tests
  42 17:11:01 <sgk>	 but some of the end-to-end tests fail, too, in ways that I haven't triaged
  43 17:10:58 <garyo>	ok, makes sense.
  44 17:11:09 <GregNoel>	works for me; where should it be scheduled?
  45 17:11:20 <garyo>	2.x p4
  46 17:11:37 <sgk>	i like garyo's p4 suggestion, i thought perhaps 2.x just so it's not hanging too long
  47 17:11:48 <GregNoel>	done; I'll also let sgk schedule it when he adds the patch.
  48 17:11:55 <sgk>	roger that
  49 17:12:20 <GregNoel>	1187: consensus
  50 17:12:34 <GregNoel>	1745
  51 17:12:53 <sgk>	is +VS sufficient by itself?
  52 17:13:01 <sgk>	this one might also be +Easy
  53 17:13:11 <garyo>	certainly should be!
  54 17:13:20 <GregNoel>	if one is to believe the VS schedule, it should be 1.3.
  55 17:13:22 <garyo>	I think also 2.x
  56 17:13:34 <sgk>	it's not a regression, so I'm okay with post 1.3
  57 17:13:39 <garyo>	Agreed.
  58 17:13:52 <GregNoel>	OK, but 2.1 surely...
  59 17:13:59 <sgk>	yes, 2.1
  60 17:14:02 <garyo>	It's an enhancement.  I could go w/ 2.1.
  61 17:14:06 <GregNoel>	garyo?
  62 17:14:11 <garyo>	ok
  63 17:14:13 <GregNoel>	done
  64 17:14:33 <GregNoel>	1883, no opinion
  65 17:14:40 <garyo>	1883: do we have a ticket for integrating the new windows installer?
  66 17:14:51 <GregNoel>	er, no idea...
  67 17:14:56 <GregNoel>	we should...
  68 17:14:57 <sgk>	we should
  69 17:14:59 <sgk>	jijnx
  70 17:15:01 <GregNoel>	jinx
  71 17:15:01 <sgk>	jinx
  72 17:15:05 <sgk>	jinx!
  73 17:15:17 <GregNoel>	what's a double jinx?
  74 17:15:25 <sgk>	metajinx!
  75 17:15:17 <garyo>	OK, so I say make a ticket for that (2.1 p2) and close this as a dup of that.
  76 17:15:40 <GregNoel>	OK, who should own the integration ticket?
  77 17:16:23 <GregNoel>	(sudden silence)
  78 17:16:36 <garyo>	Lukas, I think.
  79 17:16:48 <garyo>	And I'll help since I'm his mentor.
  80 17:17:01 <GregNoel>	Works; do you know his Tigris ID?
  81 17:17:33 <garyo>	not off the top of my head.  Last name is Erlinghagen.
  82 17:17:35 <GregNoel>	I'll make you QA
  83 17:17:42 <sgk>	good plan
  84 17:17:43 <garyo>	great idea
  85 17:17:47 <GregNoel>	done
  86 17:18:08 <GregNoel>	1945, a lot of options
  87 17:18:45 <sgk>	how about #1?  least work now, so not much lost effort if --implicit-cache goes away
  88 17:18:48 *	loonycyborg is really pestered by http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2443
  89 17:19:44 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, is that related to 1945?
  90 17:20:55 <loonycyborg>	GregNoel: No. Probably.
  91 17:21:20 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, hang on then; we'll look at it next.
  92 17:19:46 <garyo>	I'd be OK w/ that, but anything that removes spurious stuff from the .sconsign is good in by book (which means I slightly prefer #3)
  93 17:20:07 <sgk>	agreed, #3 is conceptually more attractive
  94 17:20:34 <sgk>	(heads up:  i'll have a short break in ~5 minutes when i board the shuttle)
  95 17:20:35 <garyo>	Anyway 1945 2.x p2 Ludwig?
  96 17:20:53 <sgk>	the sounds good to me
  97 17:21:00 <GregNoel>	OK, someone as QA?
  98 17:21:08 <sgk>	probably me
  99 17:21:52 <GregNoel>	Done, 2.x p2 Ludwig w/ Steven as QA
 100 17:22:22 <sgk>	2096: consensus
 101 17:22:22 <GregNoel>	2443?  It's assigned to Gary
 102 17:22:30 <sgk>	oh, sorry, we were going to look at 2443
 103 17:22:34 <garyo>	2443 is scheduled for me to do in the 2.1 timeframe.
 104 17:22:55 <GregNoel>	so, supposedly two or three months out
 105 17:23:03 *	sgk has quit (Quit: sgk)
 106 17:23:07 <Jason_at_Intel>	is this a regression?
 107 17:23:18 <garyo>	I don't remember the details but it didn't seem terribly difficult, either omit the bad kw or handle it...
 108 17:24:00 <loonycyborg>	It's definitely a regression.
 109 17:24:21 *	sgk (~sgk@67.218.103.57) has joined #scons
 110 17:24:36 <sgk>	...and we're back
 111 17:24:46 <garyo>	Unfortunately 3883 is a merge changeset.  Probably really r3820.
 112 17:24:51 <Jason_at_Intel>	I generally of the opinion regression have to be fixed quick if possible
 113 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	Looking at it, the problem may be a call to an internal function in action.py that's changed...
 114 17:25:43 <garyo>	Russel, can you submit a patch?
 115 17:26:02 <GregNoel>	Russel's not here?
 116 17:26:26 <GregNoel>	Do you mean Sergey?
 117 17:26:45 <garyo>	Sorry yes!
 118 17:28:18 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, we lose you?
 119 17:30:55 <loonycyborg>	GregNoel: No.
 120 17:27:22 <garyo>	I'm looking at the old chat log and Steven thought line 699 of Action.py was OK (according to Greg) but it looked buggy to me.
 121 17:28:41 <garyo>	I think Steven and I should look at it off list and decide.  If it's a regression we may be able to squeeze it in, esp. if we are putting out another 1.3 checkpoint which I think we need to.
 122 17:29:01 <GregNoel>	(I hope we have time to discuss that later)
 123 17:29:22 <sgk>	agreed re: another 1.3 checkpoint
 124 17:29:43 <sgk>	if we gave our releases code words we should name this one "zombie" since it won't die
 125 17:29:52 <garyo>	:-/
 126 17:29:57 <Jason_at_Intel>	:-)
 127 17:30:02 <GregNoel>	(I agree as well; I'm wondering if we should put in the deferred changesets.)
 128 17:30:12 <sgk>	at this point, probably
 129 17:30:15 <garyo>	I'm thinking the same thing.
 130 17:30:37 <garyo>	Anyway, 2443?  Omit the executor there, or handle it in subst_list?
 131 17:28:57 <sgk>	aha
 132 17:29:04 <sgk>	i think i see the problem
 133 17:30:48 <sgk>	handle it in subst_list()
 134 17:30:58 <garyo>	ok, I'll do that.
 135 17:30:56 <sgk>	it's being handled in Environment.subst_list() correctly
 136 17:31:13 <sgk>	but not in the NoSubstitutionProxy that handles the default environment case
 137 17:31:19 <garyo>	(right, just handle it all the way down)
 138 17:31:18 <sgk>	that's where the problem is
 139 17:31:36 <garyo>	ok, got it.
 140 17:31:39 <loonycyborg>	I hacked around it in my install, but it's probably not good idea to submit my hack.
 141 17:31:45 <GregNoel>	OK, do we need to reschedule the issue?
 142 17:32:06 <sgk>	put my name on 2443 so it's on my radar screen
 143 17:32:09 <garyo>	loonycyborg: I think we have a handle on it now.  Yes, let's do it for 1.3 unless it gets more complicated than I think.
 144 17:32:10 <sgk>	p1 due to the regression?
 145 17:32:16 <garyo>	ok w/ me.
 146 17:32:25 <sgk>	and... 1.3?
 147 17:32:50 <GregNoel>	done; I'll assign it to Gary with Steven as QA
 148 17:33:29 <loonycyborg>	garyo: It's good to know it's going to be fixed before 1.3
 149 17:33:44 <garyo>	will do my best :-)
 150 17:32:27 <techtonik>	GregNoel: I am here, but not completely sure - it  is 3 am. and I feel like being partially somewhere else. =)
 151 17:32:38 <techtonik>	hello
 152 17:32:56 <GregNoel>	techtonik, message above
 153 17:32:58 *	sgk has decided that techtonik is his new hero
 154 17:32:58 <garyo>	Hi techtonik
 155 17:33:28 <GregNoel>	It must be pushing 5am for Sergey...
 156 17:34:16 <garyo>	ok, so onward... where were we?
 157 17:34:24 <sgk>	i think 2096?
 158 17:34:38 <sgk>	consensus 2.x p3 +sconf_revamp there
 159 17:34:39 <garyo>	right, consensus.
 160 17:34:37 <GregNoel>	yes, done
 161 17:34:57 <GregNoel>	2249 consensus but needs a priority
 162 17:35:19 <sgk>	2249:  p3
 163 17:35:25 <garyo>	no more than p3
 164 17:35:35 <sgk>	i could be talked into p2
 165 17:36:03 <garyo>	p3 or p4 for me.
 166 17:36:12 <garyo>	let's do p3.
 167 17:36:19 <sgk>	p3 then
 168 17:36:17 <GregNoel>	p3 looks like consensus; done
 169 17:36:35 <sgk>	2304
 170 17:36:35 <GregNoel>	2304
 171 17:36:39 <GregNoel>	jinx
 172 17:36:45 <garyo>	this is already assigned to Jason.
 173 17:37:15 <GregNoel>	2304: Jason was supposed to research this issue to see if a code fragment from Parts could deal with the problem.
 174 17:36:49 <Jason_at_Intel>	still working on two fixes for it
 175 17:36:55 <sgk>	ah, okay
 176 17:37:12 <sgk>	then why deferred to this week...?  jus to revisit it for status?
 177 17:37:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	actually is there a reason why we could not make all file precious by default?
 178 17:37:45 <GregNoel>	Backward compatibility?
 179 17:37:56 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  boy, that would break a bunch of things
 180 17:38:14 <sgk>	especially all the uses of env.Command() for one-off scripts
 181 17:38:00 <Jason_at_Intel>	1 good reason
 182 17:38:00 <garyo>	Windows can't overwrite a file in ues.
 183 17:38:08 <Jason_at_Intel>	well i have that fixed
 184 17:38:17 <Jason_at_Intel>	however fdopen break the stack trace
 185 17:38:26 <Jason_at_Intel>	working on work around to that
 186 17:39:05 <sgk>	well, i'll never say never, so we can take a look if you think you have a really good solution
 187 17:39:07 <garyo>	I think this bug should be treated narrowly: just fail the build and go back to the interactive loop.
 188 17:39:16 <Jason_at_Intel>	or we catch the unlink actions in the node and don't error
 189 17:39:34 <sgk>	agree w/garyo
 190 17:40:29 <GregNoel>	Returning to the interactive loop covers my basic objection
 191 17:39:52 <sgk>	i was going to just have it not make --interactive bomb out
 192 17:40:22 <sgk>	not try to have it actually replace the in-use binary if the underlying OS doesn't normally allow it
 193 17:40:17 <garyo>	right, catch whatever's happening and reset the world as much as possible.
 194 17:40:28 <Jason_at_Intel>	so best case I will having this like linux.. worse.. we catch and excetion
 195 17:41:09 <garyo>	Jason: I wouldn't recommend even trying to overwrite a running file; Windows users don't expect it.
 196 17:41:17 <garyo>	(even if you could make it work)
 197 17:41:18 <Jason_at_Intel>	well I will have a patch in about a week I think
 198 17:41:35 <sgk>	okay, send it out for review when you think it's ready
 199 17:41:36 <sgk>	thnx
 200 17:41:44 <GregNoel>	Schedule it for 2.1 p? Jason?
 201 17:41:44 <garyo>	OK, sounds good -- shall we revisit the bug at the next party and review the patch?
 202 17:41:57 <garyo>	2.1 p3 jason?
 203 17:41:58 <sgk>	2.1 p[23] Jason
 204 17:42:00 <Jason_at_Intel>	Sounds good
 205 17:42:39 <GregNoel>	2.1 p3 looks like the consensus; done
 206 17:43:09 <GregNoel>	2536
 207 17:44:03 <garyo>	2536: leave open til Cem gets a tigris acct, then assign to him
 208 17:44:31 <GregNoel>	that's done; the question is the policy in case he can't continue with it.
 209 17:45:13 <garyo>	Greg: if no one champions a SEP it has to lie fallow or die.
 210 17:45:20 <garyo>	(IMHO)
 211 17:45:35 <GregNoel>	Well, I think it's a good idea, but I'm going to be in surgery
 212 17:46:05 <garyo>	I think it's fine too, but we have way more good ideas than implementors right now
 213 17:46:30 <GregNoel>	Sigh.  OK, if he can't continue, back to issues@scons.
 214 17:46:04 <sgk>	we should probably have a timetable
 215 17:46:32 <sgk>	N months without sponsor activity => remove assignee, probably announce that it needs a new owner
 216 17:46:37 <sgk>	N more months => close it as abandoned
 217 17:47:12 <garyo>	Sensible, but maybe with so few of them we can just be ad hoc about it for now?
 218 17:47:06 <GregNoel>	Values for N (and should the latter be M?)?
 219 17:47:26 <sgk>	3 and 6, or 3 and 9 ?
 220 17:47:39 <sgk>	latter gives it a whole year before declaring it really dead
 221 17:47:44 <GregNoel>	3 and 9 is a year...
 222 17:47:53 <garyo>	a whole year = time to release 1.3 :-/
 223 17:48:02 <GregNoel>	;-{
 224 17:48:13 <sgk>	right, depends on whether we want to shade it towards accomodatingly leaving it open
 225 17:48:23 <sgk>	or trying to prod things along
 226 17:48:36 <garyo>	how about 6 + 9?
 227 17:48:45 <sgk>	i'm okay with either approach, so long as we decide and communicate
 228 17:48:45 <garyo>	I know I'm easygoing
 229 17:49:21 <GregNoel>	OK, let's take this to email; lots more to do
 230 17:49:28 <garyo>	right.
 231 17:49:40 <GregNoel>	2539
 232 17:49:49 <GregNoel>	consensus
 233 17:50:04 <garyo>	yup
 234 17:50:14 <GregNoel>	2541, do we have consensus?
 235 17:50:48 <Jason_at_Intel>	add quotes
 236 17:50:54 <sgk>	2.1 p2 sk okay with you guys?
 237 17:51:02 <GregNoel>	works for me
 238 17:51:09 <garyo>	yes.
 239 17:51:12 <sgk>	done
 240 17:51:14 <GregNoel>	done
 241 17:51:26 <GregNoel>	2542 consensus
 242 17:51:43 <GregNoel>	2545 consensus
 243 17:51:51 <GregNoel>	2549
 244 17:52:08 <sgk>	consensus, too, looks like
 245 17:52:29 <garyo>	I think +Easy w/ invite to Russel is OK.
 246 17:52:54 <GregNoel>	2549: It's not +Easy; the logic must detect which library is available and provide the correct flag.  That's less trivial.
 247 17:54:44 <GregNoel>	It becomes a configuration problem; check for which library is present and set the right flag.
 248 17:52:49 <sgk>	any reason not to just assign to Russel?
 249 17:52:58 <sgk>	he can give it back if he really objects
 250 17:53:13 <GregNoel>	I don't think he's a Python coder.
 251 17:53:30 <sgk>	ah
 252 17:53:38 <sgk>	that would be a problem, then...
 253 17:54:24 <garyo>	Can we at least ask him for more details as to what it needs to do?  We don't have a clue.
 254 17:54:39 <sgk>	that sounds like the right next step, back to OP for clarification
 255 17:54:41 <garyo>	(Where it should look, whether it can always use phobos2, etc.)
 256 17:55:05 <garyo>	Maybe DMD has a -use-lib-if-present flag :-)
 257 17:55:26 <GregNoel>	;-} that would be too easy
 258 17:57:08 <GregNoel>	2549, consensus to reflect back to Russel for clarification?
 259 17:57:17 <sgk>	2549:  yes
 260 17:57:20 <garyo>	2549: yes.
 261 17:57:28 <GregNoel>	2549, done
 262 17:54:42 <techtonik>	Is the spreadsheet automatically syncronized?
 263 17:55:33 <garyo>	techtonik: Greg does it manually, he's our hero.
 264 17:56:36 <GregNoel>	techtonik, if you mean synchronized between multiple updaters, yes
 265 17:57:11 <sgk>	techtonik:  but it's not automatically synchronized with the tigris.org database
 266 17:58:42 <techtonik>	I would add issue autolinking given write access to the spreadsheet.
 267 17:59:35 <GregNoel>	techtonik, I could never get it to work
 268 17:59:42 <garyo>	techtonik: follow the instructions in scons.org/wiki/BugParty and you'll get write access I think
 269 17:56:18 <garyo>	2550: no idea
 270 17:56:48 <sgk>	2550:  research sk
 271 17:56:53 <sgk>	+Java
 272 17:57:55 <GregNoel>	2550, what priority?
 273 17:58:09 <garyo>	research.
 274 17:58:16 <sgk>	p3
 275 17:58:24 <GregNoel>	done
 276 17:58:34 <GregNoel>	2551
 277 17:58:39 <sgk>	doc p4 sk?
 278 17:59:14 <GregNoel>	2551, 1.3?
 279 17:59:31 <sgk>	sure
 280 17:59:45 <GregNoel>	2551, done
 281 18:00:01 <GregNoel>	2552
 282 18:00:54 <garyo>	ask OP for patch, then reassign
 283 18:01:13 <garyo>	I can ask him.
 284 18:01:32 <GregNoel>	done; I'll assign it to you
 285 18:01:58 <GregNoel>	2553
 286 18:02:11 <sgk>	same?
 287 18:02:29 <garyo>	related to 2552.  I'll take it, and ask him if he'll work on it.
 288 18:02:33 <sgk>	thnx
 289 18:02:38 <GregNoel>	done
 290 18:02:56 <GregNoel>	2554
 291 18:03:04 <sgk>	2554 and 2555:  both related to CHANGED_TARGETS, give them to me
 292 18:03:15 <sgk>	2.x p3
 293 18:03:27 <GregNoel>	done; tks
 294 18:03:37 <garyo>	thanks!
 295 18:03:50 <sgk>	2556:  thnx for sending back to OP
 296 18:03:51 <GregNoel>	2556, no test case; close as invalid?
 297 18:04:09 <sgk>	yeah
 298 18:04:17 <sgk>	invite re-opening w/test case, blah blah blah
 299 18:04:30 <garyo>	ok, I guess.
 300 18:04:18 <GregNoel>	done
 301 18:04:29 <GregNoel>	On to new issues!
 302 18:04:45 <garyo>	I will have to go soon, 10 min
 303 18:04:58 <GregNoel>	three more...
 304 18:05:05 <GregNoel>	2558
 305 18:05:20 <sgk>	consensus back to OP?
 306 18:05:21 <GregNoel>	Back to OP to revise patch?
 307 18:05:32 <GregNoel>	sorta jinx?
 308 18:05:48 <garyo>	Greg's comment is right.
 309 18:05:54 <garyo>	back to OP to use SideEffect.
 310 18:06:12 <garyo>	(and say we'll integrate it at that point, to be nice)
 311 18:06:03 <GregNoel>	done; review next time.
 312 18:06:21 <sgk>	2559:  research SK
 313 18:06:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	2559, I have a patch work around for this in Parts by overriding Clone. This was a real problem with our builds...
 314 18:06:48 <sgk>	er, i meant, 2559:  research Jason_at_Intel
 315 18:06:55 <sgk>	:-)
 316 18:07:05 <Jason_at_Intel>	well I think code review it when we get there :-)
 317 18:07:21 <garyo>	Works for me.
 318 18:07:27 <sgk>	me too
 319 18:07:34 <GregNoel>	what priority?
 320 18:07:42 <sgk>	p2?
 321 18:07:55 <garyo>	ok, or p3
 322 18:07:59 <sgk>	(5-10 minutes to buh-bye)
 323 18:08:05 <garyo>	ditto
 324 18:08:05 <GregNoel>	We probably can't get it in before 2.1, so p2 or p3 should be fine
 325 18:08:17 <sgk>	p3 then
 326 18:08:22 <GregNoel>	done
 327 18:08:24 <GregNoel>	last one
 328 18:08:29 <garyo>	2561: I can take this, for 2.1 or 2.x.
 329 18:08:29 <GregNoel>	2561
 330 18:08:34 <sgk>	awesome
 331 18:10:40 <GregNoel>	what priority for 2561?
 332 18:11:12 <garyo>	2561: enhancement, p3?
 333 18:08:42 <techtonik>	Web site bugs doesn't seem to get into spreadsheet.
 334 18:08:59 <garyo>	good point.
 335 18:09:12 <garyo>	do you have a favorite?
 336 18:09:14 <garyo>	:-)
 337 18:09:15 <GregNoel>	Yeah, that's an oversight: 2560 is a website bug.
 338 18:10:18 <garyo>	Yeah, that's a good idea in 2560.  I should do that, or maybe Bill?
 339 18:10:29 <garyo>	(Bill's done more than his share recently)
 340 18:10:35 <garyo>	so give it to me.
 341 18:10:56 <GregNoel>	2560, it already is
 342 18:11:16 <GregNoel>	You're the default assignee.
 343 18:11:11 <techtonik>	I can help with cleaning up the site.
 344 18:11:28 <garyo>	techtonik: I'll email you then and show you around!
 345 18:11:35 <sgk>	techtonik++
 346 18:11:37 <techtonik>	For example http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2544
 347 18:12:14 <garyo>	yes, that one too would be great.
 348 18:12:55 <garyo>	I'll email you the info in the next day or so, ping me if you don't hear from me; I get ridiculously busy sometimes.
 349 18:13:14 <techtonik>	garyo: np
 350 18:12:30 <GregNoel>	Web site bugs aren't tied to release schedule; only "research" is possible, I think
 351 18:13:12 <garyo>	Greg: that's OK, we don't get that many of them.
 352 18:13:27 <garyo>	Sometimes people just email webmaster@scons.org which goes to me too.
 353 18:13:53 <techtonik>	What is this "research" - do if a time permits?
 354 18:14:18 <GregNoel>	techtonik, "figure out the problem and fix it"
 355 18:14:19 <garyo>	research = look into it and decide how hard it is, what's really going on.  Goal is to re-triage after researching.
 356 18:15:26 <GregNoel>	techtonik, unfortunately we only have "unassigned" and "research" for web issues; we've never needed more.
 357 18:14:19 <techtonik>	Or, let me check one bug..
 358 18:13:54 <GregNoel>	OK, that's it!  Anything to say about 1.3 in the 30 seconds left?
 359 18:14:50 <garyo>	1.3: need another ckpoint but need to pin down behavior re: no VC installed or broken.
 360 18:15:19 <garyo>	Need to do our best given the limits of existing toolchain, but not go overboard.
 361 18:15:41 <sgk>	garyo:  any opinions on the bdbaddog / cournapeau discussion?
 362 18:15:42 <garyo>	I want to talk it over w/ bdbaddog too, he's in the trenches on this.
 363 18:16:09 <garyo>	sgk: I think I do have opinions but I need to reread the discussion.
 364 18:16:43 <garyo>	sgk: basically I'm OK w/ ignoring bat file failures *most* of the time, but not if it was explicitly selected.
 365 18:16:59 <sgk>	that makes sense
 366 18:15:47 <techtonik>	This one should be fixed before 1.3 http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051
 367 18:16:35 <techtonik>	Many frameworks are installed via easy_install, especially in virtualenv.
 368 18:17:15 <sgk>	(1 minute)
 369 18:17:33 <garyo>	techtonik: doubt we can do that for 1.3.  It's closed for everything but regressions...
 370 18:17:44 <sgk>	techtonik:  so basically we just need to add an additional dir to sys.path to make it work?
 371 18:17:53 <techtonik>	sgk: exactly
 372 18:18:02 <sgk>	if that's all, i can look at that for the next 1.3 checkpoint
 373 18:18:05 <garyo>	hm, is it that easy?
 374 18:18:13 <sgk>	1.3 p1 sk
 375 18:18:20 <garyo>	if so and it's low risk I'd be OK.
 376 18:18:22 <techtonik>	I have a patch for windows batch.
 377 18:18:31 <sgk>	gotta run, send me any more info
 378 18:18:35 *	sgk (~sgk@67.218.103.57) has left #scons
 379 18:18:35 <garyo>	sk: thanks!
 380 18:18:57 <garyo>	I have to go too... see you folks in a couple of weeks.  We'll plan the 1.3 ckpt on the ML.
 381 18:19:03 <GregNoel>	OK, thanks all; cul...
 382 18:19:06 <garyo>	ciao
 383 18:19:10 *	garyo (~garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has left #scons
 384 18:19:15 <Jason_at_Intel>	later!
 385 18:19:27 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458])
 386 18:19:49 <techtonik>	That was too fast. I probably need to subscribe to dev after all.
 387 18:42:19 *	loonycyborg has quit (Quit: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
 388 19:28:34 *	techtonik has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 389 

BugParty/IrcLog2010-02-02 (last edited 2010-02-03 21:29:13 by ip68-7-77-81)