Please note:The SCons wiki is in read-only mode due to ongoing spam/DoS issues. Also, new account creation is currently disabled. We are looking into alternative wiki hosts.
   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)