-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 311
IrcLog2008 05 19
William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016
·
2 revisions
16:42:23 * bdbaddog (n=[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has joined #scons
17:25:45 * stevenknight (n=[stevenkn@69.36.227.130](mailto:stevenkn@69.36.227.130)) has joined #scons
17:26:25 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> That's three; where's Gary?
17:26:39 <stevenknight> i think he said he might be late
17:26:42 <stevenknight> putting the kids to bed
17:26:56 <stevenknight> bill, you're not spinning tonight?
17:27:22 <stevenknight> oh, wait, he's greyed out
17:27:30 <stevenknight> who's the third?
17:28:17 * garyo-home (n=[chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) has joined #scons
17:28:25 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> You, me, Bill, and there's Gary.
17:28:34 <stevenknight> hi Gary
17:28:50 <garyo-home> hi guys, I'm here for a little, then I'll have to put the kids to bed, then I'll be back.
17:28:57 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Anybody else here for the bug party?
17:30:09 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, the official start is here; shall we proceed?
17:30:16 <stevenknight> let's go
17:30:24 <stevenknight> starting with current...
17:30:25 <stevenknight> 2048
17:30:36 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> In the overlaps?
17:31:00 <stevenknight> the "Current issues" spreadsheet?
17:31:33 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> We should do the ones left over from last time first; it overlaps with the current issues
17:31:49 <stevenknight> okay, point me to the list/spreadsheet you want to work from
17:32:06 <garyo-home> I guess that would be editlist2008, w/ 1874 first
17:32:14 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> yep
17:32:35 <stevenknight> go ahead, i've scrolled down
17:32:45 <garyo-home> ok, 1874: hasn't this been fixed multiple times before?
17:33:10 * bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.")
17:33:12 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Yes
17:33:14 <garyo-home> I think I fixed it myself a long time ago.
17:33:27 <garyo-home> Should've made a better test case I guess.
17:33:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Bill just left, but he was going to bring it up for discussion on the mailing list
17:34:03 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> did it ever happen? I don't remember it.
17:34:13 <garyo-home> Don't think so.
17:34:33 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> And Steven is right that one size does not fit all.
17:34:59 <garyo-home> I seem to remember that I fixed it by ignoring "suffixes" that were all numeric, that's probably why ".4g" fails that test.
17:35:21 <garyo-home> Does this just have to be configurable?
17:35:31 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I don't see how
17:35:30 <stevenknight> I think give it back to Bill and/or recategorize it as a doc issue
17:35:43 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I like doc issue
17:35:52 <garyo-home> there could be a "force suffix" option or something?
17:36:06 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Hmmm
17:36:09 <stevenknight> that's File("name-with.odd-suffix")
17:36:31 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> good point
17:36:32 <stevenknight> oh, you mean on the Builder
17:36:46 <garyo-home> yeah I guess
17:37:00 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, a doc issue assigned to??
17:37:14 <garyo-home> I don't think it's just doc, is it?
17:37:35 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> "If you don't like the suffix, use File()"
17:37:56 <garyo-home> OK, I could live with that for now, but I'd like a better solution for 2.x
17:38:15 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I would, too
17:38:10 <stevenknight> back to Bill to really discuss on the mailing list
17:38:34 <stevenknight> and/or doc the File() workaround
17:38:30 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, I'll make it, what, research?
17:38:37 <stevenknight> yeah, research
17:38:40 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
17:38:45 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> next?
17:38:54 <stevenknight> 1883
17:39:09 <stevenknight> damn, i answered this in the other spreadsheet as well
17:39:14 <stevenknight> my comment in editlist2008 is off
17:39:22 <stevenknight> the last time we put it in we did have instaler issues
17:39:34 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> What's up with Nathan?
17:39:37 <stevenknight> but it was because distutils changed the location to the script/ subdirectory at the same time
17:39:45 <stevenknight> I don't think it had anything to do with this App Paths thing
17:39:58 <stevenknight> ???
17:40:01 <stevenknight> oh, GSoC?
17:40:13 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Yes, we talked about assigning it to him
17:40:39 <stevenknight> ah, right
17:40:42 <garyo-home> 1883: what does the patch really do? I can't see it.
17:41:20 <stevenknight> it adds an entry to the Windows registry
17:41:48 <stevenknight> IIRC it ends up making it so you can execute scons.bat w/out having to have the directory in %PATH%
17:42:17 <stevenknight> Nathan has been sending me status reports, but I've not been giving him adequate attention yet
17:42:20 <garyo-home> That would be good; maybe it sets cmd.exe's [AppPath](AppPath) or something I guess
17:42:22 <stevenknight> so we could definitely assign it to him
17:42:45 <garyo-home> I never use scons.bat, but I could do so for testing this.
17:42:47 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, what's his account?
17:43:15 <stevenknight> i'll look it up
17:43:20 <stevenknight> let's move on while i search
17:43:32 <garyo-home> 1925, then?
17:43:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Add it to the spreadsheet when you find it; I'll take care of it later
17:44:01 <stevenknight> okay
17:44:07 <stevenknight> 1925: research, me
17:44:24 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done; next?
17:44:32 <garyo-home> OK, but not for 1.0 though
17:44:53 <stevenknight> definitely not 1.0
17:45:01 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> probably 2.x
17:45:07 <stevenknight> 1958: Bill's volunteering, consensus research
17:45:29 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
17:46:11 <garyo-home> 2000: I say 1.x but not the approach in the patch; should really figure it out.
17:46:28 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> when?
17:46:56 <garyo-home> Low priority, so could be 2.x as far as I care
17:47:02 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 1.x? or move to 2.x?
17:47:35 <garyo-home> I say 2.x because it'll just slow down real work
17:47:37 <stevenknight> agree w/Gary, 1.x, low priority... P4?
17:47:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> p5
17:47:50 <stevenknight> fair enough
17:47:57 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done; next?
17:47:59 <stevenknight> do i hear p6?
17:48:08 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> (no such!)
17:48:10 <garyo-home> :-)
17:48:19 <stevenknight> going once, twice.... sold!
17:48:43 <garyo-home> ok, 2001? (remove max_drift)
17:48:58 <stevenknight> 2001: research
17:49:00 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Narrow use; 2.x
17:49:08 <garyo-home> I don't use it, but it was meant to support NFS.
17:49:26 <stevenknight> i'm inclined to give it back to Ken and let him lead a ML discussion to find out who's actually using it
17:49:29 <stevenknight> if anyone
17:49:35 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> And NFS now uses deltas, so it doesn't happen any more.
17:49:38 <garyo-home> Actually Greg if it can give a 25% speedup, I say get rid of it sooner
17:49:50 <stevenknight> speedup++
17:50:01 <garyo-home> 1.x, p2?
17:50:12 * stevenknight agrees
17:50:22 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> ok
17:50:44 <garyo-home> 2003 is weird
17:50:46 <stevenknight> 2003: agree w/Greg, wontfix
17:50:52 <stevenknight> agree w/Gary, weird
17:51:07 <garyo-home> wontfix
17:51:11 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
17:51:37 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> last one?
17:51:59 <garyo-home> This will get fixed someday by Greg+Gary tool rewrite, but what about the near term?
17:52:39 <garyo-home> We can't use his patch as is, people don't expect CCFLAGS to get clobbered.
17:53:06 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Maybe it should be set by c-common setup, whatever it's called.
17:53:34 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> er, no, bad idea
17:53:53 <stevenknight> hmm, i took a quick look last night and i think his narrow fix of having mingw reset $CCFLAGS solves his specific symptom nicely with little impact
17:54:02 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> This happens because one compiler is configured and then another configured on top of it
17:54:15 <stevenknight> agreed that's the larger issue
17:54:20 <garyo-home> Right, but what if user sets CCFLAGS and then applies Tool('mingw')?
17:54:35 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> He gets what he pays for.
17:54:44 <stevenknight> they're no worse off than lots of other things that get set
17:54:52 <stevenknight> $CCCOM, $CFLAGS, etc.
17:54:56 <garyo-home> Hmm, OK I see your point.
17:55:10 <stevenknight> all that has to wait until your tool rewrite
17:55:17 <garyo-home> OK, 1.x then.
17:55:21 <stevenknight> but we can make this one situation better in the meantime
17:55:26 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, what priority?
17:55:36 <stevenknight> p2 or p3
17:55:58 <garyo-home> p3, it's only that one tool in that one case
17:56:02 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done; on to the next spreadsheet
17:56:02 <stevenknight> okay
17:56:24 <stevenknight> Current Issues, right?
17:56:26 <garyo-home> I like Ken's patch in 2048
17:56:44 <stevenknight> gary, you think 1.0?
17:56:51 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> destab
17:57:00 <stevenknight> as in 0.98.5?
17:57:01 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> destableizing
17:57:06 <stevenknight> right, i'm worried abou stability on it
17:57:12 <garyo-home> Look at the code; it only does changes that one case. But 1.x is fine w/ me.
17:57:16 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> (ok, I still can't spell)
17:58:02 <garyo-home> 1953, my current bete noire...
17:58:03 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 1.x, what priority?
17:58:05 <stevenknight> 1.x, give it to me for integration
17:58:20 <garyo-home> 2048: p3?
17:58:24 <stevenknight> p2, i agree that the patch is nice (modulo stability)
17:58:32 <garyo-home> ok, p2
17:58:36 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2048, ok
17:59:13 <garyo-home> Can we put 1953 in 1.0?
17:59:35 <garyo-home> At least to see if that fixes the problem?
17:59:37 <stevenknight> that code looks safe enough to me
17:59:52 <stevenknight> and there needs to be a 0.98.5 for other reasons anyway
17:59:55 <stevenknight> 1.0, p2
17:59:55 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> it was off the top of my head; don't take it literally
18:00:07 <stevenknight> right, but it's clear a problem
18:00:24 <stevenknight> and you point to the right sort of solution, even if the code ends up a little different
18:00:26 <garyo-home> and it *has* to be a threading thing because otherwise that error could not occur
18:00:28 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> it still leaves the race, it just covers up the symptoms
18:00:36 <garyo-home> Greg: that is true.
18:01:05 <stevenknight> an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance... ;-)
18:01:33 <garyo-home> I'll be back in a bit -- at least you're at the part of the spreadsheet where I did my homework now :-)
18:01:34 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Gary, have you tried it?
18:02:21 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Why don't we assign it to you for research; if it seems to kill the problem, we'll try it for 1.0
18:02:30 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> And he's gone....
18:02:37 <stevenknight> yeah
18:02:40 <stevenknight> research, me
18:03:00 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, I'm sure Gary will be willing to test it
18:03:11 <stevenknight> agree about the underlying race for [NodeInfo](NodeInfo) still being there; I'll add comments to that effect
18:03:24 <stevenknight> in get_ninfo(), not just here
18:03:39 <stevenknight> and/or in [NodeInfo](NodeInfo).<ins>init</ins>() or some such
18:03:48 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> works for me
18:03:59 <stevenknight> okay, looks like we covered the next set of overlaps
18:04:03 <stevenknight> 1874, 1883
18:04:05 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> skipping the overlaps to 1967?
18:04:27 <stevenknight> right 1967
18:04:30 <stevenknight> consensus future
18:04:37 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
18:04:40 <stevenknight> do we need an assigee?
18:05:03 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> for that far in the future? no, I don't think so. what priority?
18:05:18 <stevenknight> leave it p3
18:05:24 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done;next?
18:05:41 <stevenknight> skip 2000, 2001
18:05:49 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I'll take 2007
18:05:50 <stevenknight> 2007: 1.x, you
18:05:53 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
18:06:19 <stevenknight> 2010: 2.x consensus
18:06:21 <stevenknight> leave unassigned?
18:06:28 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> yes to both
18:06:57 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I want to get a keyword for all of these so we can triage them further as a group.
18:07:06 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> and assign them then
18:07:05 <stevenknight> good idea
18:07:18 <stevenknight> 2014: i'm torn
18:07:39 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I don't understand why it's needed
18:08:04 <stevenknight> right now we assume that no one else has corrupted the tree in between runs
18:08:08 <stevenknight> not unreasonably
18:08:10 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> either you trust the sig or you don't.
18:08:51 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> if you don't trust it, always recalc, fine.
18:09:05 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> but if you're going to try for optimizations, you have to trust it
18:09:21 <stevenknight> hmm, i do see your point
18:09:26 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> that's why Decider() has such a range of options
18:09:31 <stevenknight> this was a bigger problem back when we were using build signatures
18:09:51 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> but they're going away
18:10:00 <stevenknight> and we could use signatures from the .sconsign file assuming no file corruption
18:10:01 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> don't throw good effort after bad
18:10:40 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Uh, which file corrupted? .sconign?
18:11:06 <stevenknight> no, you build
18:11:28 <stevenknight> then someone corrupts your .obj file (or copies a trojan into it)
18:11:48 <stevenknight> and we could see the .c file hasn't change, so we don't rebuild the .obj
18:12:06 <stevenknight> but then *use* that corrupt .obj to link a .exe
18:12:13 <stevenknight> so this verification would be
18:12:15 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> The sig wouldn't match, oh, I see,
18:12:29 <stevenknight> right
18:12:38 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> The new sig wouldn't match, but the old one could.
18:12:40 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> hmmm
18:13:22 <stevenknight> right, it starts to use the .sconsign signatures as a weak bill-of-materials of sorts
18:14:01 <stevenknight> before you use the built targets from last time, please make sure that you think they really do match what you thought you built
18:13:49 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> How about a Decider(always-recalc)?
18:14:17 <stevenknight> something like that
18:14:34 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I could understand that but I'd do it as a Decider()
18:14:42 <stevenknight> give it to me, 1.x, p3
18:14:49 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
18:15:13 <stevenknight> if it fits in Decider I'll do it that way
18:15:58 <stevenknight> hmm, looks like i'll be able to go beyond 6:30 tonight
18:16:12 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Keep pushing...
18:16:16 <stevenknight> we're stuck in traffic
18:16:32 <stevenknight> likely because of an accident... :-(
18:17:05 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> (I'll tell you my stuck-in-traffic story some day)
18:16:36 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2015
18:17:06 <stevenknight> 1.x, me, p3
18:17:47 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> ok, getting that scan for the dir source really needs to be fixed
18:18:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2016, consensus
18:19:22 <stevenknight> yeah, 2.x
18:19:50 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2020: this isn't tool config, why our plan?
18:20:31 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> oops, screen update, nevermind
18:21:03 <stevenknight> sorry, what are we on?
18:21:08 <stevenknight> 2016 is consensus 2.x, yes?
18:21:12 <stevenknight> and I have 2018 next
18:21:52 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Yeah, the spreadsheet is giving me partial screen updates
18:22:06 <stevenknight> okay
18:22:33 <stevenknight> i think 2018 is pretty straightforward
18:22:43 <stevenknight> 1.x seems reasonable
18:22:45 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I'm pretty sure that blanks are compressed out of all cmd-STR variables
18:23:12 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> But I've broken the case where I was doing it, so I'm not positive.
18:23:10 <stevenknight> if you want to confirm that I'll support INVALID
18:23:24 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> me, research?
18:23:45 <stevenknight> done
18:24:15 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2020, you, as specified, done
18:24:15 <stevenknight> 2020: me, 1.x, p...2?
18:24:49 <stevenknight> 2021: 1.x, anyone else's choice of priority
18:25:07 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> These File/Dir conflicts are new; something started them. p2 is probbly OK
18:25:40 <stevenknight> 2021 is actually the --debug=time + --interactive bug, not File/Dir
18:26:18 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Yeah, I don't type fast enough
18:26:49 <stevenknight> no problem, just want to make sure we're getting right info on the right bug
18:27:01 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2021 p2 unless it's not simple, then p3 or p4
18:27:20 <stevenknight> agreed
18:27:23 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
18:27:55 <stevenknight> 2022: agree w/your plan, let David prioritize it relative to his time and other Fortran work
18:28:04 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2023, you research for dup?
18:28:37 <stevenknight> yes
18:28:49 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2022, funny screen updates again, done
18:29:30 <stevenknight> no problem
18:29:33 <stevenknight> 2029:
18:29:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> not a lot of yacc users, 2.x?
18:29:59 <stevenknight> i could go for that
18:30:13 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> assign to Gary?
18:30:14 <stevenknight> we can always move it up if there's a groundswell
18:30:20 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> agreed
18:30:21 <stevenknight> yes
18:30:24 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
18:31:00 * [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel) stays silent for 2036
18:31:05 <stevenknight> 2036: consensus 2.x p2
18:31:19 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
18:31:23 <stevenknight> i completely agree we're way overdue for a better way to do this
18:31:37 <stevenknight> assign it to either me or you and we can work out a reasonable interface between us
18:31:45 <stevenknight> i'd be happy to implement, though
18:32:08 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I don't like DESTDIR; too inflexible, but we can discuss that elsewhere
18:32:21 <stevenknight> i think you're right
18:32:29 <stevenknight> 2037: TASK
18:32:36 <stevenknight> it's not product code at all
18:33:03 <stevenknight> let Sohail check it in himself and you (or anyone else) can hack on it as necessary
18:33:12 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done; I fiddled with it today
18:33:14 <garyo-home> hi guys I'm back
18:33:24 <stevenknight> hey there
18:33:33 <stevenknight> we're up to 2041 on the "Current issues" spreadsheet
18:33:38 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> and there's some nice test code in the attachment; Hi, Gary...
18:33:53 <stevenknight> just in time for you to weigh in on it, it's an intelc.py thing
18:34:03 <garyo-home> OK. yep, that sounds like mine.
18:34:32 <stevenknight> okay, we got past the traffic slowdown, i think i've got another 5-10 minutes
18:34:52 <garyo-home> Don't know if it has to be as complicated as that patch though; I might just add an option so user could specify if needed.
18:35:03 <stevenknight> 2041: assign to gary, 1.x, p...3?
18:35:05 <garyo-home> Anyway assign it to me, 1.x, p2 or p3
18:35:11 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> p3
18:35:24 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
18:35:46 <stevenknight> skip next (OVERLAP)
18:35:47 <stevenknight> 2043
18:35:50 <garyo-home> 2043 seems like a side project to me
18:35:56 <stevenknight> 2.x, p4
18:36:01 <stevenknight> we have plenty of real work to do
18:36:05 <garyo-home> OK, 2.x p4
18:36:21 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done; when shall we three meet again?
18:36:25 <stevenknight> if they want to actually do the work i'd be okay with it going in earlier, too
18:36:36 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> in lightning, thunder, or in rain?
18:36:38 <stevenknight> 2044:
18:36:45 <stevenknight> 1.x, p2 (if not p1)?
18:36:48 <garyo-home> Yes, 2044 should be 1.x or earlier
18:36:54 <stevenknight> i'd say 1.0 but it's potentially destabilizing
18:36:54 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> uh, that was a left parenthesis...
18:36:57 <garyo-home> UNC paths are important
18:37:20 <stevenknight> if you want we could make it 1.0 and i could take a look at how bad it would be
18:37:36 <stevenknight> i can always decide to push it back
18:37:42 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> research? I don't want to commit to 1.0
18:37:58 <garyo-home> I can run it here too. Let's just look at the code carefully before putting it in 1.0.
18:38:06 <stevenknight> i'd prefere 1.x over research to make sure it stays on more visible lists
18:38:17 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 1.x p1?
18:38:19 <stevenknight> research suggests "back burner" to me w.r.t. actually allocating time
18:38:19 <garyo-home> Yes, don't make it research
18:38:24 <stevenknight> yeah, 1.x p1
18:38:33 <garyo-home> OK w/ that
18:38:39 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> No, research means "figure this out and assign it to a milestone"
18:39:05 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Can we meet again tomorrow briefly if we don't finish today?
18:39:05 <garyo-home> Greg: technically you're right but we're close to 1.0 now so there's not much research time left
18:39:09 <stevenknight> i agree conceptually, but in practice I deal with 1.0 before research
18:39:28 <garyo-home> Yes, I can do tomorrow night for a little while. I'll finish the spreadsheet too.
18:39:48 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Just for this spreadsheet
18:40:00 <stevenknight> 2046: consensus 1.x p4
18:40:03 <stevenknight> i can do tomorrow
18:40:05 <garyo-home> right, that's the last bit: 2046 to the end
18:40:27 <stevenknight> okay, last few minutes for me
18:40:36 <stevenknight> tomorrow night: 17:00 or 17:30?
18:40:52 <garyo-home> 17:00 is better for me I think
18:40:58 <stevenknight> that's fine for me
18:41:00 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> either is fine by me
18:41:04 <stevenknight> 17:00
18:41:09 <garyo-home> ok, done, see you then
18:41:13 <stevenknight> sounds good
18:41:15 <stevenknight> many thanks
18:41:24 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 17h00 to use the standard, such as it is...
18:41:34 <stevenknight> 17h00... :-)
18:41:38 <garyo-home> right.
18:41:39 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2047?
18:41:57 <garyo-home> That's the one that a user was complaining about, right?
18:42:09 <garyo-home> How about warning instead of erroring?
18:42:11 <stevenknight> yeah
18:42:29 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I'll buy a warning
18:42:36 <stevenknight> 1.0?
18:42:42 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> hmmm
18:43:02 <garyo-home> As long as adding the warning and keeping going is easy, then 1.0, else 1.x.
18:43:05 <stevenknight> i'm more comfortable with 1.x, but this is pretty annoying
18:43:26 <stevenknight> me, 1.0, p2
18:43:32 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 1.x p1; if he finishes early, we can reconsider
18:43:33 <garyo-home> Put it in for 1.0 but if it gets tricky then reschedule for 1.x
18:43:36 <stevenknight> if it looks risky i'll push it out
18:43:44 <stevenknight> agreed
18:43:53 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> which?
18:43:59 <stevenknight> coming up to the bus stop, catch you guys tomorrow
18:44:01 <stevenknight> 1.0
18:44:13 <garyo-home> ok, have a good night Steven!
18:44:17 <stevenknight> 2047: 1.0, p2
18:44:18 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Let's pick up here; cul
18:44:18 <stevenknight> l8r
18:44:22 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
18:44:24 <garyo-home> (pun not intended)
18:44:47 <garyo-home> ok Greg, I'll see you tomorrow as well.
18:44:54 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, cul
18:45:02 <garyo-home> bye