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 Also, new account creation is currently disabled due to an ongoing spam flood (2013/08/27).
   1 16:03:04 *	techtonik ( has joined #SCONS
   2 16:31:51 *	garyo ( has joined #SCONS
   3 16:47:50 *	bdbaddog ( has joined #SCONS
   4 17:00:39 *	sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-bfuzncsvocbkaddk) has joined #SCONS
   5 17:00:48 <garyo>	Hi guys
   6 17:00:53 *	You are no longer marked as being away
   7 17:00:53 <sgk>	hello hello
   8 17:00:57 *	GregNoel is here
   9 17:01:07 <garyo>	Hi Greg
  10 17:01:14 <GregNoel>	Hello, everyone; who all is here?
  11 17:01:29 *	sgk applauds GregNoel for getting 2.0.0 release
  12 17:01:30 <garyo>	Looks like me, sgk, Bill, you
  13 17:01:32 <sgk>	d
  14 17:01:36 <bdbaddog>	I'm here.
  15 17:01:58 *	Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@ has joined #SCONS
  16 17:02:00 <garyo>	Yes -- kudos to both Greg and Bill for getting through a lot of checkpoints and releases recently!
  17 17:02:04 <garyo>	Hi Jason
  18 17:02:15 <bdbaddog>	Garyo: Thanks.
  19 17:02:17 <Jason_at_Intel>	HI all
  20 17:02:34 <bdbaddog>	I guess 1.3.1 should go out soon. I'll get it done when I'm back from this conference.
  21 17:02:20 <GregNoel>	sgk, garyo, thanks.  We had a major earthquake leading to lots of network outages that made the process interesting...
  22 17:02:29 <sgk>	yow
  23 17:02:37 <garyo>	Oh yeah, I heard about that -- no major damage though?
  24 17:03:10 <GregNoel>	garyo, not to us.  A picture fell off a shelf and broke the glass.
  25 17:03:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	?
  26 17:03:37 <garyo>	I thought people in California didn't put things on shelves :-/
  27 17:03:45 <garyo>	(earthquake, Jason)
  28 17:03:55 <Jason_at_Intel>	ahh
  29 17:04:07 <GregNoel>	There are bookcases in our library.
  30 17:04:32 <garyo>	So wow, 2.0 is out and all kinds of stuff is now unblocked -- meaning I have to get to all those things I said I'd do post 2.0! :-) :-)
  31 17:04:30 <GregNoel>	Anyway, are we ready to go?
  32 17:04:36 <garyo>	Yes, I'm ready.
  33 17:04:41 <sgk>	ready
  34 17:04:46 <GregNoel>	2634, wontfix?
  35 17:05:03 <sgk>	i can go there
  36 17:05:05 <garyo>	I'm ok w/ that, he'll reopen if needed
  37 17:05:14 <GregNoel>	done
  38 17:05:16 <GregNoel>	2636, more time?
  39 17:05:20 <garyo>	yes
  40 17:05:34 <sgk>	yes, revisit next bug party
  41 17:05:43 <GregNoel>	done
  42 17:05:45 <GregNoel>	2639, consensus 2.1 p3, but needs an owner.
  43 17:05:54 <sgk>	russel brought it up, right?
  44 17:06:21 *	sgk wishes that's bug tracker had keyboard shortcuts
  45 17:06:30 <GregNoel>	{;-}
  46 17:06:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	loading spreadsheet.. but ready
  47 17:06:35 <garyo>	Maybe he'd do it.  Yes, he posted it.
  48 17:06:53 <garyo>	no wait, Steven did.
  49 17:07:33 <sgk>	yeah, i opened it to avoid another N emails where people debated whether or not an issue should be opened, and by whom
  50 17:06:53 <GregNoel>	Or how about techtonik?  He's interested in documentation.
  51 17:07:00 <garyo>	Greg: that's a good idea.
  52 17:07:27 <Jason_at_Intel>	anyone use the tiris ecplise of VS integration?
  53 17:07:54 <garyo>	jason: not me.
  54 17:08:06 <sgk>	if techtonik is interested, great
  55 17:08:13 <garyo>	OK, for 2639, assign to techtonik & see if he minds?
  56 17:08:19 <garyo>	Or ask first?
  57 17:08:27 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll ask him.  Is that the decision?
  58 17:08:32 <sgk>	yeah
  59 17:08:33 <garyo>	+1 from me
  60 17:08:45 <sgk>	and if he doesn't want it, then i'm okay with just giving it to Russel
  61 17:08:36 <GregNoel>	done
  62 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	2640, consensus 2.1 p2 Greg, unless Gary restores his offer...  {;-}
  63 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	2642, consensus 2.1 p3 Gary
  64 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	2643, consensus 2.x p3 Gary (I'm neutral about coercion v. error)
  65 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	2644, Steven, I don't think an organized text file is more of a custom file format than a "standard" XML binary format; quite the reverse, in fact.  Besides, I'm leery of requiring another external package to diff XML when all the python versions we support have difflib for text.
  66 17:09:23 <sgk>	re: 2644:  okay, suit yourself
  67 17:09:26 <garyo>	2644, I don't have an opinion either way
  68 17:10:36 <bdbaddog>	+1 on not requiring more packages for developer.
  69 17:10:32 <garyo>	2645 I can do, if you don't mind me doing it blind (no Fortran) -- I'll just check with the OP.
  70 17:10:33 <GregNoel>	2645, consensus 2.1 p2, but needs an owner.
  71 17:11:01 <garyo>	I'll take it
  72 17:11:30 <GregNoel>	done
  73 17:11:33 <GregNoel>	2646, consensus invalid
  74 17:11:33 <GregNoel>	2647, Steven solved a nasty problem and checked in a fix, but should that fix be scheduled toward a release of, 2.0.1, or 2.1? I added a workaround to the issue that should work (Gary's suggestion of SideEffect() works perfectly), so if we deem that good, I vote for 2.1.
  75 17:11:59 <sgk>	what's the difference between and 2.0.1 ?
  76 17:12:02 <sgk>	from a user perspective
  77 17:12:21 <GregNoel>	sgk, the former is a patch, the latter is a new release.
  78 17:12:41 <sgk>	and users need to know / care about that distinction because...?
  79 17:12:01 <bdbaddog>	Sideffect() is a workaround for the issue right?
  80 17:12:15 <Jason_at_Intel>	yep
  81 17:12:09 <garyo>	I vote for 2.1.  It's still a corner case.
  82 17:12:46 <Jason_at_Intel>	Well as a corner case i can't promote to Scons 1.2+ till it is in
  83 17:12:48 <bdbaddog>	post bugs, I think we need to discuss getting rid of the .final.
  84 17:12:50 <garyo>	Right, we shouldn't drop everything to release this fix basically.
  85 17:12:56 <GregNoel>	I'm seeing a consensus toward 2.1
  86 17:12:59 <Jason_at_Intel>	I have six products that broke cause of this
  87 17:13:16 <bdbaddog>	it's a regression right?
  88 17:13:21 <sgk>	yes, it worked in 1.2.0
  89 17:13:22 <bdbaddog>	2.0.1
  90 17:13:25 <Jason_at_Intel>	yep
  91 17:13:26 <GregNoel>	Jason_at_Intel, can you use SideEffect()?
  92 17:13:27 <garyo>	Hm, ok maybe it's an edge rather than a corner? :-)
  93 17:13:34 <sgk>	heh
  94 17:13:47 <bdbaddog>	we have a fix. 2.0.1, unless u think the fix might destability 2.0.0
  95 17:13:56 <bdbaddog>	destabilize that should be.
  96 17:14:12 <Jason_at_Intel>	Yes, i have people moving to it... but politics prevent a move to 2.0 cause of fear that something else if wrong
  97 17:14:22 <garyo>	I'm ok either way, just trying to reduce release churn so we can get some work done.
  98 17:14:38 <Jason_at_Intel>	I think that SideEffect is more correct in most of the cases this happens for me
  99 17:14:52 <garyo>	Jason: that's what I'd expect, given the testcase.
 100 17:15:02 <bdbaddog>	pushing the release button is all I have time for in the near future. so if I can get a handle on greg's changes I can do that.
 101 17:15:10 <Jason_at_Intel>	but the large products have 350 binaries in it
 102 17:15:29 <Jason_at_Intel>	so it hard to say that SideEffect will fix all cases developer have come up with
 103 17:16:11 <Jason_at_Intel>	we have some very cleaver people :-)
 104 17:16:10 <garyo>	If Bill's got time for a 2.0.1, I'm OK with that.  Is there anything else we should squeeze in?
 105 17:16:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	I can wait till 2.0.1
 106 17:16:29 <bdbaddog>	maybe any doc changes?
 107 17:16:29 <GregNoel>	Sounds to me that you should try to switch to SideEffect() and if it doesn't solve your problems, reopen the question.
 108 17:16:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	but i hope it is in 30 or so :-)
 109 17:16:42 <garyo>	30 what?
 110 17:16:48 <sgk>	yeah, doc changes:  i still owe a writeup on SConsignFile()
 111 17:16:53 <Jason_at_Intel>	30 days
 112 17:17:05 <garyo>	ok.  Yes, I owe some doc fixes too.
 113 17:17:08 <bdbaddog>	I also owe some doc work as well.
 114 17:17:10 <GregNoel>	also
 115 17:17:10 <garyo>	--warn in the UG I think.
 116 17:17:48 <garyo>	Steven, I sent you some doc a while ago, any opinion on where that could go?
 117 17:18:00 <sgk>	oh, right
 118 17:18:10 <sgk>	i vaguely remember looking at it and not having a good idea either
 119 17:18:14 <sgk>	same with SConsignFile
 120 17:18:30 <sgk>	if it's really homeless, putting it in the Misc chapter seems as good as any
 121 17:18:12 <GregNoel>	(I have a question about the doc work, too, but let's return to it later; resolve this issue first.)
 122 17:18:44 <garyo>	I'm hearing 2.0.1 for this issue.
 123 17:18:58 <sgk>	so 2.0.1 with a normal checkpoint cycle, right?
 124 17:19:06 <garyo>	Jason needs it, it's done, and Bill has time to push it out.
 125 17:19:08 <GregNoel>	I'd rather see if SideEffect() solves the problem.
 126 17:19:29 <garyo>	He should use SideEffect where possible anyway; it's more correct.
 127 17:19:39 <garyo>	Ties the dependency to the proper builder.
 128 17:19:34 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  what would give your user base the most confidence?
 129 17:19:44 <sgk>	knowing that there's a better solution in the current code base,
 130 17:19:56 <sgk>	or fixing this behavior with Depends()?
 131 17:19:42 <bdbaddog>	GregNoel: But is SideEffect() is a workaround?
 132 17:20:29 <garyo>	Depends() is weird in this case anyway.  It's brain-twisting that it even should work.
 133 17:20:31 <GregNoel>	Depends() is an accident; SideEffect() is really the right solution.
 134 17:20:49 <garyo>	(but I agree it should work.)
 135 17:20:36 <Jason_at_Intel>	I would say 2 things
 136 17:21:13 <Jason_at_Intel>	1) being backwards compatible.. so teh current build does not break ( minus stuff that is really broken)
 137 17:21:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	2) saying that something did not happen.. Scons is very silent on what it is doing
 138 17:21:23 <Jason_at_Intel>	 ie
 139 17:21:49 <Jason_at_Intel>	it does not say .. i am ignoring this node as it has no builders... did you mean SideEffect?
 140 17:21:50 <sgk>	garyo:  i kind of view it as Depends() should work on a file without a Builder just like it does on one with
 141 17:21:57 <sgk>	it's just that without a Builder, the build action is null
 142 17:22:20 <sgk>	but that may be because i've been brainwashed by the current implementation
 143 17:22:31 <garyo>	sgk: you're right, I'm kind of exaggerating.  But I think everyone's right:
 144 17:22:40 <Jason_at_Intel>	people get unhappy when Scons when they don't get why it will not build something as they expect
 145 17:22:43 <sgk>	shuttle real soon....
 146 17:22:40 <GregNoel>	sgk, then will you fix Alias() as well?  It has the same problem.
 147 17:22:56 <sgk>	GregNoel:  good point
 148 17:23:05 <sgk>	since this behavior is fresh in my mind, i'll take a look now
 149 17:22:55 <garyo>	Depends() should be made to work as it did, and Jason should use SideEffect where it's correct to do so.
 150 17:23:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	it is not me... but the developer i support :-)
 151 17:23:22 <sgk>	biab
 152 17:23:23 *	sgk has quit (Quit: sgk)
 153 17:23:30 <garyo>	Jason: yep
 154 17:23:40 <Jason_at_Intel>	ya the Alias() and Depends()
 155 17:23:43 <GregNoel>	brb
 156 17:23:44 <Jason_at_Intel>	I like that to be fixed
 157 17:24:02 <Jason_at_Intel>	it would allow the Make virtual node idea to work as people expect
 158 17:24:08 <garyo>	Jason: no doubt in anyone's mind they should work.
 159 17:24:54 <garyo>	But do we *need* to put out an extra release, with checkpoints and bla bla bla, for it?  Maybe... let me see how many 2.1 tickets we have.
 160 17:25:18 <Jason_at_Intel>	I know... the problem i get is I have some very passionate developer that go back and say " in my day.. this did not happen... and pigs flew"
 161 17:25:35 <bdbaddog>	I'm thinking since we'll be adding a lot into 2.1, that this bug fix should go without all that additional changes.
 162 17:25:45 <garyo>	OK, we have 68 tickets open for 2.1.  This is going to take a while.
 163 17:26:10 <garyo>	So maybe 2.0.1 is appropriate.
 164 17:27:09 <garyo>	whoa, 20 of the 2.1 issues are mine :-/
 165 17:27:33 <bdbaddog>	Yeah. I don't want to even look at that yet..:(
 166 17:27:56 <garyo>	You're OK, only 5.
 167 17:28:16 <GregNoel>	As I said before, Depends() is an accident; SideEffect() is really the right solution.  The regression should be fixed, but you should be using SideEffect().
 168 17:29:12 <garyo>	I think we all agree on that now.  But looking at the tix for 2.1, I think 2.0.1 is OK if Bill's up for it.
 169 17:29:40 <bdbaddog>	yup. so we do a checkpoint? and then 2weeks later 2.0.1 right?
 170 17:29:44 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 171 17:29:48 <bdbaddog>	this weekend is when I'll get to the build.
 172 17:30:18 <garyo>	Works for me; I should be able to get some doc in there too by then.
 173 17:30:32 *	Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@ has joined #SCONS
 174 17:30:55 *	sgk (~sgk@ has joined #SCONS
 175 17:31:07 <sgk>	am i back yet?  is this thing on?
 176 17:31:08 <GregNoel>	It could work.  It was surprisingly easy to cherry-pick individual changesets over via checkpoint.  But I'd oppose bringing over anything more.  (Well, maybe the doc.)
 177 17:31:37 <sgk>	what'd i miss?
 178 17:31:58 <Jason_at_Intel>	we agree that we have a lot of stuff to fix
 179 17:32:02 <bdbaddog>	2.0.1 with just that fix, checkpoint build this weekend, 2.0.1 2 weeks later.
 180 17:32:03 <garyo>	I think we're agreeing on 2.0.1 with a checkpoint first, including only this fix and some doc
 181 17:32:10 <bdbaddog>	yes. + doc.
 182 17:32:45 <GregNoel>	done
 183 17:32:22 <garyo>	(and that there are 68 tickets open for 2.1, 20 of which are mine, ack)
 184 17:32:27 <sgk>	okay
 185 17:32:48 <sgk>	(the other 48 are probably mine, given my track record... :-/)
 186 17:33:14 <garyo>	Actually a bunch are issues@scons which I don't understand
 187 17:33:43 <GregNoel>	sgk, 2.1 is scheduled for October, so you've got plenty of time... {;-}
 188 17:34:02 <garyo>	October 2009? :-)
 189 17:34:16 <garyo>	j/k
 190 17:34:20 <sgk>	garyo:  don't understand how they got that way?  I returned a whole bunch that were languishing with me
 191 17:34:25 <GregNoel>	garyo, probably +Easy that never got assigned.
 192 17:34:54 <garyo>	ok, sounds plausible
 193 17:35:01 <GregNoel>	garyo, no, October 2010, believe it or not; it's in the roadmap.
 194 17:35:26 <garyo>	excellent!
 195 17:35:51 *	sgk scores a point for garyo
 196 17:35:52 <garyo>	68 tickets in 4 months is doable I think.
 197 17:36:07 <sgk>	yep, sounds realistic
 198 17:35:51 <GregNoel>	OK, we seem to be agreed on that; resume the doc discussion?
 199 17:35:57 <garyo>	fine w/ me
 200 17:36:58 <GregNoel>	My question is where the command-line options live.  I was looking for a template to start with while I was waiting for the regression tests to finish and couldn't find one.
 201 17:38:13 <sgk>	in the User's Guide, they kind of just show up wherever it conceptually makes sense to introduce them
 202 17:38:17 *	sgk goes to look for an example
 203 17:38:31 <Jason_at_Intel>	the is a nice section in the man page
 204 17:38:52 <sgk>	example:  --tree= shows up in the troubleshooting section
 205 17:39:26 <sgk>	so it's a matter of thinking about where it makes logical sense to introduce the concept of "you can control warnings"
 206 17:40:10 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  I think I have --warn= and Gary has --checkdisk, but neither of them seem to have homes.
 207 17:40:32 <sgk>	there is a chapter that's nominally about controlling your build from the command line
 208 17:40:38 <sgk>	doc/user/command-line.{in,xml}
 209 17:40:57 *	GregNoel looks at it...
 210 17:40:59 <sgk>	but it's a little more about Options and stuff like that
 211 17:41:14 <sgk>	but maybe it provides a logical home anyway
 212 17:41:25 <sgk>	i could also see --warn= in the troubleshooting section
 213 17:41:52 <sgk>	i could see users ending up there if they ask themselves, "where do I find out how to get SCons to STFU"
 214 17:42:26 <garyo>	I agree -- the man page is where we put all the options together; the UG should be task-oriented.
 215 17:42:47 <GregNoel>	Yeah, either is a possibility; I was afraid I'd have to do an entire new page...
 216 17:44:02 <GregNoel>	Now that I have a clue, I'll be able to hunt down a few more examples.  Thanks.
 217 17:44:34 <sgk>	okay
 218 17:44:40 <sgk>	what else?
 219 17:44:44 <GregNoel>	Anything else?  There were some other things about doc before; are all of those answered?
 220 17:45:05 <bdbaddog>	.final ?
 221 17:45:20 <GregNoel>	What about it?
 222 17:45:37 <garyo>	Can we omit it, per discussion on the ml today?
 223 17:45:39 <bdbaddog>	Are we going to drop it and have 2.0.1 and 2.0.0,etc for the actual release?
 224 17:45:44 <sgk>	yeah, i was surprised to see that show up in the actual package name
 225 17:45:45 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 226 17:45:49 <bdbaddog>	well not 2.0.0 since it's out
 227 17:45:55 <sgk>	right
 228 17:46:45 <GregNoel>	I noticed that as the release was going out, but I didn't have time to do anything about it then.
 229 17:47:28 <garyo>	ok, for 2.0.1 then, we're all agreed?
 230 17:47:30 <GregNoel>	There's a distinction between the _package_ name (*.final.*) and the _release_ name (2.0.0).
 231 17:47:50 <GregNoel>	We need to figure out which is used where.
 232 17:48:00 <sgk>	GregNoel:  conceptual distinction, or just in the way I implemented the SConstruct build long long ago?
 233 17:48:09 <GregNoel>	Yes
 234 17:48:25 <sgk>	which?
 235 17:48:28 <sgk>	let me ask another way
 236 17:48:54 <sgk>	we all agree the release should ideally be named 2.0.1, not, yes?
 237 17:48:59 *	Jason_at_Intel_ (~chatzilla@ has joined #SCONS
 238 17:49:00 *	Jason_at_Intel_ is now known as Jason_at_Intel
 239 17:49:22 <bdbaddog>	yes
 240 17:49:33 <GregNoel>	Yes, but when one refers to the package, it has the suffix.  They're different.
 241 17:49:53 <sgk>	that's the next question
 242 17:50:06 <GregNoel>	That is, you should download, but it should install 2.0.1.
 243 17:50:12 <sgk>	GregNoel:  you're saying that you think the package should be named ?
 244 17:50:19 <GregNoel>	Yes
 245 17:50:34 <sgk>	why?  i don't know of another project that does that
 246 17:50:51 <sgk>	does it buy us anything other than the ordering?  or is that the main motivator
 247 17:50:57 <GregNoel>	Because it sorts alphabetically.
 248 17:51:48 <bdbaddog>	Doesn't seem to be a problem for other projects, so why be diffferent?
 249 17:51:48 <sgk>	i personally don't find that a compelling reason to make users map between the release number and a package with a different name
 250 17:52:03 <garyo>	Irrespective of anything else, I think the download file of 2.0.1 should be called scons-2.0.1.tar.gz unless we have a really good reason.
 251 17:52:11 <bdbaddog>	concur
 252 17:52:38 <garyo>	Checkpoints and betas should identify themselves as such though, just as we've been doing.
 253 17:52:45 <GregNoel>	Well, I've missed final releases because it was buried in the list of alpha, beta, ... releases, so I have personal motivation if nothing else.
 254 17:53:14 <garyo>	Still, look around -- nobody else calls their finals final.
 255 17:53:39 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 256 17:54:17 <GregNoel>	I could be persuaded, but I'd still worry about it.
 257 17:54:08 <garyo>	Is either way technically more difficult than the other?
 258 17:54:29 <sgk>	i don't think so, but i haven't looked at that code in a while
 259 17:55:21 <GregNoel>	garyo, yes; update-release-info has to know which values to update; it's tricky for the case of pure text files with no hints.
 260 17:54:42 <sgk>	GregNoel:  still worry about what aspect of it?
 261 17:56:14 <GregNoel>	sgk, people picking the last-listed (or first-listed) simply because they missed the actual release in the middle.
 262 17:56:49 <GregNoel>	Look at the RPM labeling to avoid that problem.
 263 17:57:24 <sgk>	?
 264 17:57:26 <garyo>	Yes, rpm solves that cleverly.  But it's not purely alphabetical; it sorts the separate fields.
 265 17:57:23 <bdbaddog>	We can go non-final and see if we get any user issues..
 266 17:57:34 <bdbaddog>	if not we stay that way, if so we revisit.
 267 17:57:41 <garyo>	There's no good way if sourceforge is purely alpha.
 268 17:58:26 <GregNoel>	I'm certainly open to suggestions.
 269 17:58:18 <garyo>	I think people will figure it out.
 270 17:58:51 <GregNoel>	garyo, _I_ missed it, more than once.  And I think I'm brighter than the average downloader.
 271 17:58:55 <garyo>	I think in the absence of brilliant new methods we should just do what everyone else does.  Innovate in the software, not the naming.
 272 17:58:59 <bdbaddog>	So I'm looking at the SF ui now. newest files are at the top.
 273 17:59:35 <garyo>	That would be sensible...
 274 17:59:38 <bdbaddog>	Highlighted in green with a table tile of "newest files"
 275 17:59:49 <bdbaddog>	then a section labelled "all files"
 276 17:59:59 <bdbaddog>	I think we'll be fine with vanilla 2.0.1 labelling.
 277 18:02:08 <GregNoel>	OK, identify which cases need the full label and which need the short label, and I'll see what I can do with update-release-info.
 278 18:02:35 <garyo>	Greg's right that in some cases it will probably not sort ideally.  But I think it's such a minor thing, and the ".final.0" sticks out like a sore thumb to me; for me it's mostly an aesthetic thing.
 279 18:02:40 <sgk>	alpha, beta, candidate all seem okay with the full label
 280 18:03:30 <sgk>	as a naive user, any added word (or abbreviation like "rc") is a flag to me that it's not a production release
 281 18:04:28 <bdbaddog>	so are we doign alpha and candidate now? or just alpha, beta, and released (where there's no additioinal text for the released version)
 282 18:05:00 <GregNoel>	Ah, bad timing; I'm called to dinner.  I'll collect my thoughts and continue the thread on the mailing list.
 283 18:05:23 <sgk>	darn, i had a testing topic i wanted to talk about
 284 18:05:30 <sgk>	okay, i can shift that to the mailing list, too
 285 18:05:40 <bdbaddog>	free beers at vendor party are waiting for me...
 286 18:06:04 <GregNoel>	I can stall a few minutes for another topic, but this one is drawing out.  Is it quick?
 287 18:06:11 <sgk>	probably not
 288 18:06:37 <GregNoel>	A quick general statement of the issue?
 289 18:06:40 <sgk>	trying to decide how to start converting the tests
 290 18:06:55 <sgk>	to the new sconstest- prefix idea
 291 18:06:23 <bdbaddog>	float it to release or dev mailing list?
 292 18:07:15 <GregNoel>	Ah.  Definitely not quick.  Mailing list it is.  We'd need Dirk for it anyway.
 293 18:07:23 <sgk>	yep, good point
 294 18:07:29 <sgk>	we're done?
 295 18:07:36 <GregNoel>	I think so; g'night all.
 296 18:07:40 <sgk>	bdbaddog:  i'll send to dev
 297 18:07:41 *	You have been marked as being away
 298 18:08:05 <sgk>	'night
 299 18:08:07 <garyo>	ok folks, see you again soon.  bdbaddog, have a beer for us!
 300 18:08:14 <bdbaddog>	will do!
 301 18:08:24 *	sgk (~sgk@ has left #SCONS
 302 18:08:55 *	bdbaddog has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.3/20100401064631])
 303 18:09:30 *	garyo ( has left #SCONS

BugParty/IrcLog2010-06-15 (last edited 2010-06-21 18:11:32 by ip68-7-77-81)