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 16:35:36 *	Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@12.18.240.224) has joined #SCONS
   2 16:54:01 *	garyo (~garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #SCONS
   3 16:54:41 *	bdbaddog (~bdeegan@adsl-71-131-8-164.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #SCONS
   4 16:58:10 *	GregNoel is here and getting set up, another couple of minutes...
   5 16:58:26 *	sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-vtdxqwybqnmycvwp) has joined #SCONS
   6 16:58:28 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
   7 16:59:36 <garyo>	All, Jason & I've been having some toolchain discussions offline.  Hopefully I can write something up and/or Jason can implement something around it soon... based around iapat ideas mostly.
   8 17:01:23 <garyo>	OK, shall we dive into the bug list?
   9 17:01:25 <GregNoel>	Hi, everybody...  Looks like a quorum, shall we start?
  10 17:01:41 <sgk>	sure, any sign of greg yet?  (he just leaves himself logged in usually)
  11 17:01:48 <sgk>	oh, there you are
  12 17:01:49 <sgk>	!
  13 17:01:50 <garyo>	He's really here
  14 17:01:55 <sgk>	cool
  15 17:02:00 <Jason_at_Intel>	he needed a minutes to setup
  16 17:02:08 <sgk>	let's go then
  17 17:02:11 <GregNoel>	2581
  18 17:02:48 <garyo>	Seems like there's not a lot we can do about that in the near term, right?
  19 17:02:55 <GregNoel>	concur
  20 17:02:58 <sgk>	i don't think it's a quick fix
  21 17:03:03 <sgk>	so post-2.2, probably
  22 17:03:16 <Jason_at_Intel>	agreeded
  23 17:03:34 <garyo>	2.x p3 sk then? (With option to punt further if needed)
  24 17:03:39 <GregNoel>	I'm even inclined to say it's post 2.x
  25 17:03:40 <sgk>	2.x p4?  i'm pretty sure re-ordering the lines is a valid workaround, lousy though that is
  26 17:03:50 <garyo>	sgk: my thought too.
  27 17:04:15 <GregNoel>	I'll go along, even though 2.x is overfull
  28 17:04:30 <garyo>	p4 makes it puntable
  29 17:04:38 <sgk>	wouldn't surprise me if all 2.x p4 get pushed out when we re-evaluate them
  30 17:04:55 <sgk>	but it at least makes sure we take a look when it comes time to reprioritize
  31 17:04:59 <GregNoel>	ok, 2.x p4 sk
  32 17:05:05 <sgk>	done
  33 17:05:06 <garyo>	good
  34 17:05:12 <GregNoel>	2609
  35 17:05:29 <garyo>	no response yet, defer
  36 17:05:34 <sgk>	agree
  37 17:05:35 <GregNoel>	Are we still waiting for more info?
  38 17:05:42 <sgk>	i think so, yes
  39 17:05:45 <garyo>	Yes, I asked on 4/17
  40 17:05:53 <GregNoel>	ten days...
  41 17:05:55 <garyo>	maybe it's too long to wait?
  42 17:06:29 <garyo>	I'm sure there's some user error in there that maybe we could catch, but without the OP we can't do anything.
  43 17:06:30 <GregNoel>	kick him again, then close next time?
  44 17:06:30 <sgk>	if we want to be super-nice, update it with a note re: we'll close it at the next bug party
  45 17:06:39 <garyo>	agreed.
  46 17:06:41 <sgk>	yes
  47 17:06:44 <GregNoel>	done
  48 17:07:07 <GregNoel>	1610
  49 17:07:14 <GregNoel>	oops, 2610
  50 17:07:41 <GregNoel>	I don't know where this file is read, but would universal newlines help?
  51 17:07:36 <sgk>	evil cygwin
  52 17:07:40 <sgk>	evil, evil, evil cygwin
  53 17:07:49 <bdbaddog>	oh please. it's not that bad.
  54 17:07:56 <sgk>	:-)
  55 17:08:03 <garyo>	I use cygwin all the time.
  56 17:08:06 <bdbaddog>	Ditto.
  57 17:08:12 <sgk>	as a user, it's great
  58 17:08:13 <bdbaddog>	for years and years and years.
  59 17:08:14 <garyo>	It's dos that's evil in the first place.
  60 17:08:24 <bdbaddog>	many x-platform build systems with it too.
  61 17:08:30 <sgk>	trying to develop for the cross-product of non-cygwin x cygwin?  another thing altogether
  62 17:08:36 <garyo>	anyway, I have no idea where to even start on this one.  Where's that file list coming from?
  63 17:08:51 <sgk>	right, i'm not sure myself
  64 17:08:54 <garyo>	and where is scons parsing it?
  65 17:09:23 <sgk>	we usually generate those, not pick them up from a file
  66 17:09:29 <garyo>	I guess we look stupid if we ask the OP for this info.  Who wrote the swig builder?
  67 17:09:44 <sgk>	probably me, long ago enough to have forgotten the details
  68 17:09:52 <sgk>	i think we probably slap my name on it by default
  69 17:10:08 <sgk>	and there's this guy who just popped up on the ML with an itch to work on Java
  70 17:10:11 <sgk>	with Russel Winder
  71 17:10:14 <garyo>	It's probably a trivial fix once the right place is found...
  72 17:10:31 <garyo>	sgk: this one might be a good one for him to start with.
  73 17:10:36 <sgk>	sure
  74 17:10:48 <sgk>	i'll take a quick look to see if it's obvious after a little digging
  75 17:10:51 <garyo>	can you suggest it to him, with a hint or two to get him started?
  76 17:11:00 <garyo>	(or what you said of course)
  77 17:10:56 <sgk>	right
  78 17:11:21 <sgk>	and contact him+Russel re: starting in earnest on refactoring Java support
  79 17:11:51 <GregNoel>	How should the issue be handled?
  80 17:11:48 <sgk>	so... -research- sk (for now)
  81 17:11:57 <garyo>	That sounds good.
  82 17:12:00 <GregNoel>	priority?
  83 17:12:12 <garyo>	p4, only one person
  84 17:12:30 <sgk>	sounds good
  85 17:12:37 <GregNoel>	ok, done
  86 17:12:45 <GregNoel>	2572
  87 17:12:49 <garyo>	invalid I think
  88 17:12:53 <sgk>	agreed
  89 17:12:55 <GregNoel>	consensus
  90 17:12:58 <sgk>	done
  91 17:13:07 <GregNoel>	2576, consensus
  92 17:13:20 <garyo>	2582, i closed
  93 17:13:20 <GregNoel>	2587, garyo +1
  94 17:13:26 <garyo>	sorry 2587
  95 17:13:38 <GregNoel>	2588
  96 17:13:39 <sgk>	yes, garyo +1
  97 17:13:39 <Jason_at_Intel>	already closed?
  98 17:14:02 <garyo>	yes
  99 17:14:11 <garyo>	sorry, not 2588
 100 17:14:21 <sgk>	right, 2587 already closed
 101 17:14:46 <GregNoel>	2588
 102 17:14:52 <sgk>	2588:  2.x p3 +Easy ?
 103 17:15:04 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...
 104 17:15:17 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I can go with that.
 105 17:15:17 <garyo>	sgk: ok, but I want a testcase first if you're ok w/ that
 106 17:15:25 <sgk>	testcase++
 107 17:15:31 <GregNoel>	agree w/testcase
 108 17:15:49 <garyo>	so we wait for yann to give us a testcase, then it's 2.x p3 +Easy.
 109 17:15:52 <sgk>	garyo:  you mean, contact the OP for a testcase?
 110 17:15:55 <sgk>	yeah
 111 17:15:57 <garyo>	I already did
 112 17:16:06 <sgk>	garyo++ again
 113 17:16:12 <GregNoel>	++
 114 17:16:14 <garyo>	hmm, that was a long time ago now though
 115 17:16:19 <garyo>	I'll ping him again.
 116 17:16:31 <GregNoel>	Put it on your plate for now?
 117 17:16:36 <garyo>	ok
 118 17:16:39 <GregNoel>	research p2?
 119 17:16:46 <garyo>	fine w/ me
 120 17:16:49 <GregNoel>	done
 121 17:16:58 <sgk>	2589:  consensus invalid
 122 17:16:59 <GregNoel>	2589
 123 17:17:04 <GregNoel>	consensus
 124 17:17:17 <GregNoel>	2590 close garyo++
 125 17:17:31 <GregNoel>	2599
 126 17:18:09 <garyo>	Agree w/ Greg, we should do all this kind of thing in toolchain, but for now it's working as designed (though annoying)
 127 17:18:25 <garyo>	Mark as invalid, assume workaround worked.
 128 17:18:41 <GregNoel>	Steven had some thoughts about doc?
 129 17:18:55 <sgk>	yeah, if our doc example uses a string, that's misleading
 130 17:19:09 <garyo>	it does, and it is.
 131 17:19:21 <garyo>	ok, mark as doc w/ a note to fix example?
 132 17:19:25 <sgk>	++
 133 17:19:29 <GregNoel>	who?
 134 17:19:29 <garyo>	for our new tech writer? :-)
 135 17:19:31 <Jason_at_Intel>	not sure.. I always use list.. no issues
 136 17:20:06 <sgk>	I raised the doc issue, i should probably own that
 137 17:20:16 <garyo>	Jason: you can also use Append() etc., they always work.
 138 17:20:28 <garyo>	just fyi.
 139 17:20:32 <GregNoel>	then when?  and priority?
 140 17:20:43 <Jason_at_Intel>	I mean when i set a var .. i use a list not CLvar
 141 17:20:51 <garyo>	list is fine too.
 142 17:20:59 <Jason_at_Intel>	I "don't get what value it has"
 143 17:21:12 <sgk>	(heads up:  2-3 minutes until I get on the shuttle, I'll drop a minute or two until I reconnect)
 144 17:21:21 <garyo>	sgk, 2.x, doc, p3?
 145 17:21:25 <sgk>	done
 146 17:21:29 <GregNoel>	done
 147 17:21:38 <GregNoel>	2600
 148 17:21:51 <sgk>	any reasons MAXLINELENGTH isn't the workaround he wants?
 149 17:22:13 <garyo>	I doubt his LINKCOM is using TEMPFILE, which is undocumented afaict
 150 17:22:34 <sgk>	:-(
 151 17:22:39 <Jason_at_Intel>	I agree
 152 17:22:59 <sgk>	back in a bit
 153 17:23:00 *	sgk has quit (Quit: sgk)
 154 17:23:11 <garyo>	I think it's important to doc that.  I'll take it for 2.something, p3.
 155 17:23:31 <GregNoel>	2.2?
 156 17:23:38 <garyo>	sounds good.
 157 17:23:42 <GregNoel>	ok, done
 158 17:24:11 <Jason_at_Intel>	+1
 159 17:23:49 <GregNoel>	2601
 160 17:23:59 <GregNoel>	consensus
 161 17:24:12 <GregNoel>	but needs milestone, priority
 162 17:24:11 <garyo>	sgk needs to be here to decide :-)
 163 17:24:31 <garyo>	I think 2.2 p3
 164 17:24:53 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  2.1, I think
 165 17:24:53 *	sgk (~sgk@67.218.110.220) has joined #SCONS
 166 17:25:09 <bdbaddog>	+1
 167 17:25:14 <garyo>	Hi Steven, 2601, documenting new cpp scanner: how about 2.1 p3 you?
 168 17:25:24 <sgk>	sold
 169 17:25:27 <GregNoel>	done
 170 17:25:38 <GregNoel>	2602
 171 17:26:26 <garyo>	I think we can close it; I tried to hook him into contributing because I think he cares about this stuff, maybe he'll respond.
 172 17:26:38 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  how reusable do you think your subprocess work in parts is?
 173 17:27:16 <Jason_at_Intel>	hmm.. I plan to tweak it a little more.. it is bound to a reporting API i have for coloring and logging as well
 174 17:27:34 <Jason_at_Intel>	but unhooking that would not be hard
 175 17:27:12 <GregNoel>	I agree with Steven about identifying the big projects and at least listing them...
 176 17:27:41 <sgk>	GregNoel:  let's see how much time we have after the bugs
 177 17:27:55 <GregNoel>	sgk, agree
 178 17:27:51 <sgk>	we could start by just brainstorming all the big things we know we'd like to do
 179 17:27:59 <sgk>	and maybe prioritize / roadmap them next time?
 180 17:28:16 <garyo>	++
 181 17:28:31 <GregNoel>	worksforme
 182 17:27:19 <sgk>	I'm okay with closing 2602 in the meantime
 183 17:27:37 <GregNoel>	invalid it is
 184 17:28:37 <sgk>	okay, then close 2602, and add SPAWN refactoring to a roadmap discussion
 185 17:28:36 <garyo>	2604 seems like consensus
 186 17:28:59 <sgk>	2604:  rob is the man
 187 17:29:04 <GregNoel>	2604, consensus
 188 17:29:12 <sgk>	2606:  2.x p3 sk
 189 17:29:32 <GregNoel>	2606, if Steven is volunteering...
 190 17:29:45 <sgk>	yeah
 191 17:29:48 <GregNoel>	done
 192 17:30:14 <GregNoel>	2607
 193 17:30:23 <GregNoel>	consensus on toolchain
 194 17:30:28 <garyo>	yes
 195 17:30:31 <sgk>	yes
 196 17:30:36 <Jason_at_Intel>	yes
 197 17:30:50 <GregNoel>	The rest of the toolchain issues are 3.x p3
 198 17:30:58 <GregNoel>	(except one)
 199 17:31:03 <sgk>	and... that looks like it
 200 17:31:06 <sgk>	quick work tonight
 201 17:31:16 <garyo>	2608?
 202 17:31:23 <GregNoel>	er, 2608?
 203 17:31:45 <sgk>	?  is that in the spreadsheet?
 204 17:31:53 <bdbaddog>	yes. progress #'s
 205 17:32:01 <GregNoel>	You even commented on it.
 206 17:32:14 <garyo>	sgk: if you want to take a crack at it I see how it could be useful.  I'd support that effort.
 207 17:32:23 <garyo>	we sure get asked for it a lot.
 208 17:32:27 <sgk>	okay, nm, i seem to have a shortened spreadhseet here
 209 17:32:32 *	sgk refreshes...
 210 17:32:40 <garyo>	damn google... :-) :-)
 211 17:33:11 <sgk>	no kidding...
 212 17:33:16 <sgk>	stupid chrome
 213 17:33:22 <sgk>	ah, there we go
 214 17:33:35 <sgk>	hey, did you guys know there are more issue farther down the spreadsheet...?  ::-)
 215 17:33:59 <GregNoel>	No, that's the last one.
 216 17:34:07 <garyo>	222 is the last line in mine
 217 17:34:17 <bdbaddog>	ditto
 218 17:34:17 <GregNoel>	220?
 219 17:34:25 <bdbaddog>	row #
 220 17:34:30 <Jason_at_Intel>	2608 is the last?
 221 17:34:33 <garyo>	yes.
 222 17:34:34 <sgk>	looks like
 223 17:34:36 <GregNoel>	oops, yep, 222
 224 17:34:46 *	sgk slinks off and stops making bad jokes
 225 17:34:46 <Jason_at_Intel>	oh 222 row
 226 17:33:46 <GregNoel>	I like Gary's idea of a wiki page to figure out what we can do.  I'd contribute to that...
 227 17:35:18 <sgk>	GregNoel:  do we have a keyword for TNG?
 228 17:35:35 <GregNoel>	Uh, I think so; if not, it's easy to add.
 229 17:35:35 <Jason_at_Intel>	TNG?
 230 17:35:43 <sgk>	anything we do to the current infrastructure to support this is throwaway
 231 17:35:45 <garyo>	sgk: why not start by putting it on the wiki, and if people like it we add it with a descriptive name that shows it's approximate.
 232 17:35:59 <garyo>	tng=taskmaster next gen
 233 17:36:46 <Jason_at_Intel>	the next generation star trek goes across my mind everytime i see that
 234 17:36:07 <GregNoel>	ApproximatePercentage
 235 17:36:16 <garyo>	yeah, something like that
 236 17:36:27 <garyo>	but it needs to be a callback, let's not design it here.
 237 17:36:38 <GregNoel>	ApproximatePercentageThatMayGoBackward
 238 17:36:44 <garyo>	:-)
 239 17:36:36 <sgk>	I'm not following you...  put it on the wiki?  you mean a discussion about whether people want this feature?
 240 17:37:00 <garyo>	sgk: no, put the code itself on the wiki for people to try.
 241 17:37:13 <GregNoel>	No, a discussion on how we can implement it, and how approximate the options would be.
 242 17:37:17 <garyo>	well, that was my original suggestion anyway.
 243 17:37:27 <sgk>	ulp.  what i had in mind would probably be pretty invasive
 244 17:37:46 <garyo>	invasive as in changes, or invasive as in using undocumented apis?
 245 17:37:54 <Jason_at_Intel>	any more so than the buildNow tool?
 246 17:37:54 <sgk>	i wasn't thinking about the walk-the-tree-once-to-count idea
 247 17:38:01 <GregNoel>	No surprise, but invasive or not, it's not obvious what the tradeoffs are.
 248 17:38:03 <sgk>	buildNow tool?
 249 17:38:31 <sgk>	invasive as in I was thinking avoid the duplicate tree walk by counting Nodes as they're added
 250 17:38:32 <Jason_at_Intel>	I might have teh wrong name... but someone made a tool to build a target
 251 17:38:34 <Jason_at_Intel>	RIghtNow
 252 17:38:41 <Jason_at_Intel>	that was it i think
 253 17:38:56 <garyo>	never heard of it
 254 17:39:05 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  send me a pointer / link?  I haven't heard of that
 255 17:39:06 <Jason_at_Intel>	so it calls the taskmaster and stuff to build a target right then
 256 17:39:20 <garyo>	Hm, there it is in the wiki. Will have to check it out.
 257 17:39:22 <GregNoel>	sgk, yeah, but a LOT of nodes do nothing: rfile duplicates, ...
 258 17:39:31 <sgk>	wow, sounds only slightly less gnarly than the SConf stuff...  :-/
 259 17:39:52 <sgk>	GregNoel:  I'm doing a lot of hand-waving, yeah
 260 17:39:58 <Jason_at_Intel>	http://www.scons.org/wiki/RightNow
 261 17:40:28 <sgk>	it just wouldn't be an easily-patchable, self-contained bit of code behind an if-test, say
 262 17:40:56 <Jason_at_Intel>	thought it would be useful to do something like this in Parts as well to speed up build times for large incremental builds
 263 17:41:14 <GregNoel>	What's wrong with "Execute()"?
 264 17:41:31 <sgk>	Execute() runs an action, no dependency checking
 265 17:41:55 <garyo>	right, and doesn't set the target as uptodate
 266 17:42:15 <Jason_at_Intel>	ideally i can read other Parts files while i start build leaf components
 267 17:42:18 <GregNoel>	Um, what runs configure checks, then?
 268 17:42:36 <sgk>	heh.  that's pretty interesting
 269 17:42:54 <sgk>	bet he's not using Configure() at all
 270 17:43:12 <sgk>	Jason_at_intel:  are you using RightNow() in Parts ?
 271 17:43:19 <Jason_at_Intel>	not yet
 272 17:43:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	I was thinking about it for the next drop
 273 17:44:06 <Jason_at_Intel>	not directly... but build it in to Parts ...
 274 17:44:18 <garyo>	RightNow code isn't very big.  A page or less.
 275 17:44:29 <sgk>	it's pretty fresh, his initial (only) checkin was 17 March
 276 17:44:52 <Jason_at_Intel>	If i allow user to call right now .... the read phase would take forever
 277 17:45:16 <garyo>	anyway, sgk, this ApproximatePercentageThatMightGoBackwards sounds like an interesting bg task if you get to it, but maybe we can design TNG to make it easier?
 278 17:45:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	However it uses the internal code.. a don't know if this would bad for TNG
 279 17:45:42 <GregNoel>	In any event, we're drifting from the topic of issue 2608, the progress indicator.
 280 17:45:44 <Jason_at_Intel>	but suggests a dev level API woudl be a nice addition with TNG for doing stuff like this
 281 17:45:44 <sgk>	garyo:  yes, that's why i was asking about TNG
 282 17:46:10 <garyo>	yup, just agreeing w/ you and trying to return to the topic at hand.
 283 17:46:22 <sgk>	yeah
 284 17:46:44 <bdbaddog>	Hey so Did u guys see my email about the tech writer?
 285 17:46:51 <Jason_at_Intel>	so progress bar is an impl for people to try to invasive?
 286 17:47:13 <garyo>	I did -- look up a few hundred lines & I mentioned them :-)
 287 17:47:36 <bdbaddog>	yup. saw that.
 288 17:47:45 <sgk>	bdbaddog:  tech writer++
 289 17:47:56 <sgk>	what would be a good next step to explore the fit w/her?
 290 17:48:01 <garyo>	Jason: too ugly for a wiki implementation, sgk may try it in the bg but no promises (did I get that right?)
 291 17:48:01 <bdbaddog>	any low haning fruit for her to take a wack at? and/or howto's she  should go through?
 292 17:48:18 <GregNoel>	Steven, could you update the issue with what you think might be possible, now and TNG?
 293 17:48:25 <sgk>	garyo:  i agree
 294 17:48:36 <Jason_at_Intel>	+1 greg
 295 17:48:37 <sgk>	GregNoel:  yes, give it to me for updating
 296 17:48:39 <garyo>	Is she up for just fixing a few of the easy doc bugs (not the ones that require detailed impl knowledge)?
 297 17:48:46 <bdbaddog>	yes.
 298 17:49:01 <garyo>	That seems like a great start.
 299 17:49:02 <GregNoel>	done, now we can go off-topic.  And think about starting a wiki page.
 300 17:49:18 <sgk>	bdbaddog:  let's you and I sync up off-line re: doc tasks
 301 17:49:22 <garyo>	wiki page for roadmap/projects?
 302 17:49:46 <bdbaddog>	sgk: sounds good.
 303 17:50:03 <GregNoel>	I was still on wiki page for progress percent, but a wiki page for big projects would be a good thing, too.
 304 17:50:56 <sgk>	re: progress percent, sounds like that's on my plate, yes?
 305 17:50:56 <garyo>	Maybe sk's comments on 2608 form the basis of the wiki page, if we're lucky
 306 17:51:09 <sgk>	that's what i was thinking
 307 17:51:13 <garyo>	+1
 308 17:51:31 <GregNoel>	And while everybody is throwing in topics, how about a 2.0 checkpoint?  I think it's ready.
 309 17:51:59 <sgk>	cool
 310 17:51:59 <garyo>	I can help w/ it this weekend, not before.
 311 17:52:11 <GregNoel>	sgk, yes progress percent is on your plate; I'll have to figure out how.
 312 17:52:15 <garyo>	(Well, I can start Fri night)
 313 17:52:43 <sgk>	fyi, i'll be out of town and probably mostly off-line this Thursday through next Tuesday
 314 17:53:19 <garyo>	No prob for the ckpoint; if it's terrible, we'll just take it down. :-)
 315 17:53:38 <garyo>	(Not that it would be of course.)
 316 17:53:44 <GregNoel>	Well, I've got one more thing I can work on until Fri, so I guess we'll start then.
 317 17:53:46 <sgk>	of course!
 318 17:54:10 <bdbaddog>	are we ready for 2.0 checkpoint build?
 319 17:54:23 <sgk>	right, that's what GregNoel and garyo are discussing
 320 17:54:25 <garyo>	That's what Greg's saying, yes.
 321 17:54:51 <garyo>	Anyone actually tried it in real life yet?
 322 17:54:55 <bdbaddog>	ugh long day..
 323 17:55:02 <garyo>	:-)
 324 17:55:24 <sgk>	not that i know of
 325 17:55:26 <bdbaddog>	I can do 1.3.1 checkpoint and 2.0 this week if you like.
 326 17:55:32 <garyo>	I'll try it on my Windows 7 box.
 327 17:55:53 <garyo>	bdbaddog: both?  I'll give you a hand of course!
 328 17:56:16 <bdbaddog>	yeah no problemo.
 329 17:56:23 <garyo>	awesome, you're on.
 330 17:56:40 <garyo>	I'll at least help w/ release announcement text etc.
 331 17:56:46 <bdbaddog>	i was starting on 1.3.1 ckpoint on sunday, ran out of steam.
 332 17:57:07 <bdbaddog>	Sure. That'd be great. We can coordinate via mail.
 333 17:57:15 <garyo>	perfect.
 334 17:57:45 <garyo>	So, project list?
 335 17:57:56 <GregNoel>	TNG
 336 17:58:03 <garyo>	subst
 337 17:58:04 <GregNoel>	Toolchain
 338 17:58:13 <garyo>	GSoC windows installer
 339 17:58:34 <GregNoel>	(is that a big project or just a merge?)
 340 17:58:35 <sgk>	Node refactor
 341 17:58:44 <garyo>	Greg: hopefully just merge
 342 17:59:05 <bdbaddog>	is the installer Wix or NSIS ?
 343 17:59:20 <garyo>	nsis if I remember correctly
 344 17:59:38 <bdbaddog>	INSTALLER: k. I have some experience with NSIS
 345 17:59:00 <GregNoel>	sgk, refactor what about Nodes?
 346 17:59:08 <Jason_at_Intel>	Nodes
 347 17:59:34 <Jason_at_Intel>	and API.. should be easier to use
 348 17:59:09 <sgk>	Node hierarchy
 349 17:59:20 <sgk>	use composition instead of inheritance
 350 17:59:24 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  sgk, interacts with TNG.
 351 17:59:45 <GregNoel>	probably minor, though...
 352 17:59:49 <sgk>	very possibly
 353 17:59:47 <bdbaddog>	How about switching tests to py.test ?
 354 17:59:58 <sgk>	componentization model / Parts integration
 355 18:00:08 <garyo>	tests as dirs
 356 18:00:27 <GregNoel>	expose test strings
 357 18:00:41 <garyo>	greg: what's that mean?
 358 18:00:46 <sgk>	yeah, tests as dirs + expose test strings + unittest
 359 18:00:57 <sgk>	it's a side effect of tests as dirs
 360 18:01:00 <GregNoel>	Test strings go into directories.
 361 18:01:00 <garyo>	ok
 362 18:01:09 <sgk>	all the Python code that's in in-line strings get put into files
 363 18:01:11 <bdbaddog>	as files rather than strings in the test files.
 364 18:01:21 <sgk>	so the Python 3.x fixers can operate on them
 365 18:01:16 <garyo>	yah, got it.
 366 18:02:08 <garyo>	take many tools out of scons core, make them plug-ins
 367 18:01:53 <GregNoel>	That's a pretty good list.  Someone want to start a wiki page?
 368 18:02:22 <garyo>	Greg: I'll start the page based on this list.
 369 18:02:31 <GregNoel>	garyo++
 370 18:02:57 <sgk>	right, most likely coordinating w/Russel Winder re: his ideas for separate Tool development
 371 18:03:17 <sgk>	oh, use a DVCS to front the SVN repository for devlopment?
 372 18:03:26 <garyo>	sgk: definitely.  And adding system site_scons dirs, all that stuff.  And interacts w/ toolchain too.
 373 18:03:27 <GregNoel>	I'm not seeing any more brainstorming; shall we deem the list complete for now?
 374 18:03:42 <sgk>	complete enough
 375 18:03:45 <bdbaddog>	Yes!
 376 18:03:50 <garyo>	sgk: anyone can front svn with a dvcs today.
 377 18:03:57 <sgk>	send out a link, we can think and add more for two weeks
 378 18:04:06 <sgk>	and then put them in some rough priority order
 379 18:04:14 <garyo>	ok, will do.  SConsFutureProjects or something.
 380 18:04:34 <GregNoel>	garyo, call it BigProjects; we can start a separate page for Roadmap.
 381 18:04:44 <sgk>	true enough re: front-end development
 382 18:05:02 <garyo>	BigProjects it is.
 383 18:05:22 *	sgk has another 3 minutes or so
 384 18:05:26 <Jason_at_Intel>	I can use Bazaar with SCOns and Parts... but i can't use it at work ( crashes) ( same with GIT)
 385 18:05:28 <GregNoel>	SConsBigProjects would work, too.
 386 18:05:29 <sgk>	anything else to cover?
 387 18:05:43 <garyo>	No, I don't like BigProjects, that's confusable with "how to do a big project with SCons."  Anyway I'll think about it.
 388 18:05:52 <sgk>	I've found that I like Mercurial, myself
 389 18:06:18 <garyo>	I front a svn repo with git and hg daily.  hg is easy, git takes a little more work but no biggie.
 390 18:06:34 <GregNoel>	techtonik has mentioned on the mailing list that he wants to use Hg with SCons SVN.
 391 18:06:44 *	sgk needs to get more modern
 392 18:07:04 <garyo>	I prefer git because I'm hardcore, but hg is nice & pillowy :-) :-)
 393 18:07:15 <bdbaddog>	I'm fine with either hg or git.
 394 18:07:36 <Jason_at_Intel>	does hg work with non standard SVN layouts?
 395 18:07:49 <garyo>	not easily, they both suck at that
 396 18:08:03 <sgk>	okay, i'm gone -- thanks guys
 397 18:08:09 <garyo>	g'night Steven!
 398 18:08:14 *	sgk (~sgk@67.218.110.220) has left #SCONS
 399 18:08:16 <GregNoel>	Me, too; dinner is called....
 400 18:08:24 <garyo>	time for me to go too, homework time for kids
 401 18:08:26 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 402 18:08:34 <Jason_at_Intel>	ok later all
 403 18:08:37 <bdbaddog>	l8r
 404 18:09:01 *	garyo has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 405 18:09:14 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458])
 406 

BugParty/IrcLog2010-04-27 (last edited 2010-04-30 14:37:24 by ip68-7-77-81)