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 

Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.