IrcLog2008 05 20

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
09:43:15  *      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 
16:59:51  *      stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-20f1d53866f4ad08) has joined #scons 
16:59:53  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Who's here for the bug party? 
16:59:59  <stevenknight> me me me 
17:00:19  <bdbaddog>     I though it was yesterday. 
17:00:30  <stevenknight> we had some follow-up to do 
17:00:38  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  followup with the rest of the current issues tonight 
17:01:23  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Gary is marked away; are you really here? 
17:01:38  <stevenknight> you == ? 
17:01:47  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  you == Gary 
17:02:14  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  he said he'd be here; shall we wait a couple of minutes? 
17:02:44  <stevenknight> sure, i can't see waiting as a problem 
17:03:00  <stevenknight> we should have plenty of time 
17:02:56  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Are you on the bus yet? 
17:03:44  <stevenknight> doesn't come until 5:25 
17:04:03  <stevenknight> i should only have a slight hiccough when i change from land-based wifi to mobile 
17:04:28  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Bill, we'll pick up with 2047 in the current issues, if you can join us 
17:04:40  <bdbaddog>     sure. lemme clock out. 
17:04:52  <garyo-home>   Hi, I'm here now. 
17:05:14  <bdbaddog>     which spreadsheet are we looking at? 
17:05:26  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  current issues of current issues 
17:06:35  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I'm going to grab a Coke while we're getting set up 
17:06:38  <garyo-home>   For 2047 we were discussing whether it could just be a warning, iirc 
17:06:53  <garyo-home>   at least for 1.0? 
17:07:22  <stevenknight> bdbaddog:  "Current issues" 
17:07:44  <bdbaddog>     got it, row 339 in the spreadshhet 
17:07:49  <garyo-home>   Hey, where did the queries in the [BugParty](BugParty) page go? 
17:08:00  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  ??? 
17:08:09  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Still there, as far as I know. 
17:08:15  <stevenknight> re: 2047, we were just zeroing in on me taking a look at how impactive it would be to turn them back into warnings 
17:08:32  <stevenknight> or not back, since this is actually a new error message 
17:08:51  <garyo-home>   oh yeah, duh 
17:09:23  <garyo-home>   Steven: any sense of what would happen if we just warn and let it try to link? 
17:09:24  <bdbaddog>     seems like a regression, sounds like making it a warning would be the right thing to do. if it can work in some toolchains. 
17:09:50  <garyo-home>   (I guess it has to choose C++ or Fortran; that's the hard part) 
17:09:51  <stevenknight> exactly 
17:10:02  <stevenknight> they may get an error if the toolchain doesn't allow this interoperability 
17:10:08  <stevenknight> which is what David was trying to guard against 
17:10:23  <stevenknight> but a little drastically 
17:10:26  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  In the long run, it should be made 'smarter still' but is that this bug or another one? 
17:10:26  <garyo-home>   Do you know which linker it used to use in that case? 
17:10:33  <garyo-home>   Another one, Greg. 
17:10:41  <garyo-home>   IMHO 
17:10:54  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, I'll add it when I clear these out 
17:10:54  <stevenknight> okay, give it me to make it a warning for 1.0 
17:11:05  <stevenknight> and i'll delay it to later if it looks too impactive 
17:10:59  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
17:11:09  <garyo-home>   good. 
17:11:56  <garyo-home>   2050 is hard I think. 
17:12:08  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  and nasty 
17:12:11  <stevenknight> yeah 
17:12:20  <stevenknight> just trying to get caught up with the code in it 
17:12:46  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  There's clearly a deadlock, but it's not clear how to break it for the child. 
17:12:54  <garyo-home>   What happens if you try 'from errno import ENOENT, ENOTDIR' at top level, so nothing happens in execvpe? 
17:13:29  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  In brief, the lock is created in the parent, so it's held by the child, leading to a deadlock, since the child will never release it. 
17:13:55  <stevenknight> give this one to me as well, obviously 
17:14:09  <garyo-home>   The deadlock is in 'import' iiuc so maybe the fix is easy. 
17:14:25  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Some of the problem is in the _Python_ libraries, since they don't expect to fork at that point 
17:14:29  <stevenknight> I can see if I can get Guido or Alex Martelli to advise 
17:14:34  <bdbaddog>     I think that could go into release notes? (2050) with a if you do this it my hurt warning, to be addressed later? 
17:15:12  <garyo-home>   Is there a reproducible testcase for this? 
17:15:03  <stevenknight> one nagging thing is bothering me about Benoit's analysis here... 
17:15:16  <stevenknight> it suggests that "import" itself isn't thread safe 
17:15:28  <stevenknight> or "import" of certain very well-used modules 
17:15:41  <stevenknight> if that were the case, I don't think SCons would be the only thing with these symptoms 
17:15:38  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  No, it's not fork-safe, not the same thing 
17:15:53  <stevenknight> ah, right 
17:16:00  <stevenknight> but still 
17:16:11  <stevenknight> it's not like we're the only Python-based application that forks things 
17:16:17  <bdbaddog>     I thought that you couldn't run python builders in parallel because of the GIL 
17:16:29  <bdbaddog>     (aka in separate threads) 
17:16:41  <bdbaddog>     well. python threads. 
17:16:55  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  separate threads are in the same process so the lock will be released 
17:17:31  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  it's the child thread that thinks it has the lock but doesn't 
17:18:01  <garyo-home>   In any case, my opinion is it should be investigated more, but maybe not fixed til 1.x, p1. 
17:18:10  <stevenknight> the thing that really concerns me is that in some of those cases (import within function) 
17:18:13  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  If Guido or Alex can help, that would be the way to go 
17:18:31  <stevenknight> the import was moved thre because scoping rules weren't letting it get imported at the global module level 
17:19:00  <stevenknight> i agree with gary:  1.x p1 
17:19:07  <stevenknight> and with Greg re: getting help 
17:19:05  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
17:19:43  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2051, consensus? 
17:19:54  <garyo-home>   2051: consensus 1.x p3? 
17:20:05  <stevenknight> i was looking at this again this morning 
17:20:24  <stevenknight> since we don't supply an egg, he must have packaged/installed it himself 
17:21:04  <stevenknight> it shouldn't hurt anything to add the code he's suggesting 
17:21:29  <stevenknight> but the fact that "easy" install makes you do this sucks 
17:21:46  <stevenknight> of course, we are doing something different than most Python packages 
17:21:54  <stevenknight> okay, i'll stop ranting 
17:22:09  <stevenknight> 1.x p3 
17:22:23  <bdbaddog>     1.x p3 
17:22:37  <garyo-home>   sure 
17:22:39  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
17:22:44  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2052 
17:22:58  <stevenknight> gotta get on the bus, may have to reconnect 
17:23:00  <garyo-home>   2052 must be trivial? 
17:23:01  *      stevenknight has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep") 
17:23:38  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I don't use M$'s Java wanabe, so I have no clue 
17:23:51  <garyo-home>   Probably just forgetting to check the length of the parsed version strings or something. 
17:24:02  <garyo-home>   [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel): :-) 
17:24:32  <garyo-home>   I bet I could fix that, give it to me.  I think I have a machine with one of those .NET versions on it. 
17:24:52  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  works for me 
17:24:57  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:25:01  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  1.x? 
17:25:21  *      sgk_ (n=[stevenkn@69.36.227.130](mailto:stevenkn@69.36.227.130)) has joined #scons 
17:25:31  <sgk_> okay, i'm back 
17:25:40  <sgk_> what are we up to? 
17:25:43  <garyo-home>   I'd say 1.x, but the short-named .NET versions are the real releases... 
17:25:44  <bdbaddog>     2052 
17:25:57  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Gary wants 2052, but not settled on milestone or priority 
17:26:00  <bdbaddog>     .net version number issue. 
17:26:01  <garyo-home>   so it may bite us if not fixed in 1.0. 
17:26:13  <sgk_> right 
17:26:16  <bdbaddog>     yeah. if it's trivial 1.0 
17:26:30  <sgk_> gary, do you want to take a look for 1.0 and back off if it looks risky? 
17:26:39  <garyo-home>   ok, sorry I have to go guys, we're almost done with that spreadsheet anyway. 
17:26:54  <sgk_> okay, thanks 
17:27:19  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I'll set it to 1.x p1 
17:27:27  <sgk_> 1.0 p2, gary to back off if it's risky 
17:27:38  <sgk_> okay, p1 
17:28:01  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, I guess. 
17:28:05  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2056? 
17:28:04  <sgk_> BTW, i have a question re: our target milestones 
17:28:17  <sgk_> did we change our interpretation? 
17:28:26  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Not as far as I know 
17:28:34  <sgk_> yesterday and today we are treating them as "1.0 means it should go in *for* 1.0" 
17:28:40  <sgk_> right? 
17:28:43  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Yes 
17:29:11  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  1.x (note the x) means "during the 1.0 cycles" 
17:29:12  <sgk_> but we've got a whole bunch of 1.0 target milestone things already that clearly aren't happening in the slim time between 0.98.x and 1.0 
17:29:44  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  _I_ didn't put them there; others decided they should be; I've pushed for 1.x 
17:30:13  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  but I basically agree with your point 
17:30:18  <sgk_> oh, wait, i didn't look closely enough 
17:30:18  <bdbaddog>     why don't we wrap up the spreadsheet and take a quick look at what's left for 1.0 ? 
17:30:38  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I'd suggest that the next bug party triage 1.0 more closely. 
17:30:40  <sgk_> most of these are doc issues which we did agree we'd work on while 0.98.x is soaking 
17:30:55  <sgk_> yeah, sorry to derail 
17:30:59  <sgk_> back to 2056 
17:31:20  <bdbaddog>     I know there was traffic on the mailing list for that, did someone propose a fix? 
17:31:44  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I'm not opposed to a 0.98.5, but _six_ release candidates is a lot 
17:31:53  <sgk_> i found a guy's blog with a technique for propagating %ERRORLEVEL% even when using setlocal+endlocal 
17:32:28  <bdbaddog>     6 RC's better than 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2 in a week though.. :) 
17:32:35  <sgk_> and we don't have a test case that explicitly tests scons.bat for things like this 
17:32:43  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  bdbaddog: point taken 
17:32:46  <sgk_> just the scons wrapper itself 
17:33:14  <sgk_> me, 1.0 (or 0.98.5), p1 
17:33:23  <bdbaddog>     1.0p1 sounds good to me. 
17:33:26  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
17:34:02  <sgk_> 2057:  the same big issue it's always been 
17:34:12  <sgk_> looks like consensus is 1.x and p3 
17:34:24  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  yeah, but who? 
17:34:41  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  someone needs to think about the criteria and write them up 
17:34:57  <sgk_> i'll take it 
17:35:13  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  no no no, someone _else_; you know too much about the internals 
17:35:21  <sgk_> ok... 
17:35:27  *      sgk_ is properly chastened...  :-) 
17:35:43  *      [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel) couldn't spell that on a bet 
17:36:15  <bdbaddog>     steven how ugly will it be to understand the code issueing that message? 
17:36:29  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Nasty 
17:36:47  <bdbaddog>     nasty understand everything, or understand 1/2 of everything? 
17:37:07  <sgk_> it does get a little involved 
17:37:20  <sgk_> but what about writing up requirements not from a code perspective 
17:37:24  <sgk_> but purely from a user perspective 
17:37:24  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  The underlying problem is what do do if a Builder isn't configured, so there's no way to recognize the suffix 
17:37:49  <sgk_> then refine that 
17:38:03  <bdbaddog>     so if I have file abc.xyz and nobodies registered .xyz, what to do? 
17:38:07  <sgk_> that might be fruitful without having to grok a whole bunch of the code 
17:38:15  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  bdbaddog: exactly 
17:38:32  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  ("nobody's") 
17:38:59  <bdbaddog>     [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel): you are correct sir. :) 
17:39:17  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I guess I can draft something, but I'm not sure I'd get all the nuances 
17:39:57  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  bdbaddog: don't call me "sir" -- I worked for a living! {;-} 
17:39:57  <sgk_> that's okay, if it gets us closer to the goal 
17:40:20  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, me, when?  1.x? 
17:40:26  <bdbaddog>     Greg I'd be willing to be sounding board on that for you. 
17:40:40  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Thanks 
17:40:45  <bdbaddog>     1.x 
17:40:58  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  although I'm sure there will be lots of drafts :-( 
17:41:07  <bdbaddog>     google docs is your friend.. :) 
17:41:23  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  or the wiki... 
17:41:49  <bdbaddog>     :) 
17:41:54  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  onward? 
17:41:56  <sgk_> yes 
17:42:12  <sgk_> that's it for the spreadsheet 
17:42:29  <sgk_> but i think a few more have come in since it was generated 
17:42:31  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  last one, 2058? 
17:42:32  <sgk_> hang on... 
17:42:37  <sgk_> oh, right 
17:43:05  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I haven't looked at the new logos he developed, but the first set looked good 
17:43:15  <sgk_> cool 
17:43:36  <sgk_> i'd say let him check in directly 
17:43:40  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I think it should go to Gary to set up a web page for them 
17:44:01  <sgk_> cool, that sounds better 
17:43:59  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  but the problem is setting a policy and a license for them 
17:44:18  <sgk_> aha 
17:44:34  <bdbaddog>     do we need to file a trademark on it? 
17:44:50  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  possibly 
17:45:02  <sgk_> not sure 
17:45:01  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  need legal advice, for sure 
17:45:15  <sgk_> we can check with the SFLC, we're "clients" 
17:45:28  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  yes, but you have to do that 
17:45:55  <sgk_> okay, then make this one a task for Gary to set up the web site 
17:46:13  <sgk_> and how about another task for me to check with SFLC re: trademark and/or licensing issues 
17:46:29  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
17:46:11  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  And another related issue, probably needs to be well-started by 1.0, is getting releases on file for everyone who has ever submitted code 
17:47:13  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  and I'll create a task for the disclaimers as well 
17:47:10  <sgk_> re: releases:  we're helped by our non-restrictive license 
17:47:29  <sgk_> contributors don't have to actually assign code ownership to us 
17:47:53  <sgk_> they just have to license it to us 
17:48:08  <sgk_> that tends to make corporate lawyers less jumpy 
17:48:22  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  and exactly who has done that so far? 
17:48:29  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  anybody? 
17:48:35  <sgk_> a handful 
17:48:47  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  didn't know that 
17:48:54  <sgk_> or rather, a handful have actually assigned ownership 
17:48:54  <sgk_> early contributors like Anthony and Charles 
17:49:15  <sgk_> I think Gary sent me one as well 
17:49:22  <bdbaddog>     Should we put up a page listing contributions and assignments? 
17:49:37  <sgk_> not a bad idea 
17:49:50  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  hmmm...  not so sure 
17:50:08  <sgk_> ? 
17:50:09  <bdbaddog>     do all the svn comments indicate who contributed code as most was checked in by Steven? 
17:51:12  <sgk_> probably upwards of 90%-95% (or more) owing to occasional lapses 
17:52:01  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  but there are hundreds of people; if we miss any, it could be a problem 
17:52:13  <sgk_> legal or PR? 
17:52:17  <bdbaddog>     BTW I just check tigris, there are 39 1.0 bugs. most docs. 
17:52:20  <bdbaddog>     Legal.. 
17:52:40  <bdbaddog>     look at the driver issue between linux and openbsd. big stink. 
17:53:22  <bdbaddog>     Steven,  would all the patches be in the mailing list archive? 
17:53:28  <sgk_> yes, should be 
17:53:44  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  probably the starting point is to try to get a list of the contributors; the release notes should help 
17:54:17  <sgk_> iirc, i think we've got 150+ unique names in the change log 
17:54:20  <bdbaddog>     Maybe float an email to users and dev mailing list asking for assignment or licensing from any patches contributed? 
17:54:57  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Yes, for those who are still with us 
17:55:08  <sgk_> right 
17:55:14  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  but I'll bet more than half will have to be tracked down 
17:55:35  <sgk_> easily 
17:56:13  <sgk_> but we're pretty penny-ante, and it helps to at least be able to show good faith efforts to try to get approval 
17:55:57  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Mozilla had to go through this; do we have any contacts with them that far back? 
17:56:27  <sgk_> with Mozilla?  not directly 
17:56:41  <sgk_> certainly not related to any SCons work 
17:56:38  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  They tracked me down through three address changes; not an easy job 
17:56:46  <sgk_> wow 
17:57:16  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  good faith is one thing, but I hope we won't be penny-ante forever 
17:57:26  <bdbaddog>     :) 
17:57:57  <sgk_> good point... 
17:58:31  <sgk_> well, i can dig up the existing releases 
17:58:41  <sgk_> and we can start a spreadsheet tracking everyone 
17:58:53  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I know Mozilla went to the pain of removing any code they couldn't resolve 
17:59:13  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  and reverse-engineering any they wanted to keep 
17:59:13  <bdbaddog>     yes. and you have to do that clean room, it can be a huge pain. 
17:59:15  <sgk_> the lawyer at SFLC said in practice if you get the big contributors you're pretty safe 
17:59:48  <sgk_> i can make that discussion available too (email) 
17:59:50  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I'm sure that would cover 99.44% of the code, but it only takes one 
18:00:27  <sgk_> sure 
18:00:29  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  send a form to me; I haven't signed one yet 
18:00:33  <bdbaddog>     Well lets do what we can, and perhaps when Steven chats with SFLC about the icon, he can bring up the issue? 
18:00:34  <sgk_> it can help w/prioritizing though 
18:01:23  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  how? 
18:01:58  <sgk_> start with the biggest contributors 
18:02:12  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  yes 
18:03:32  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Long silence; have we said all that can be said now? 
18:03:46  <sgk_> i think so 
18:04:36  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, then there's probably not a lot of use starting on the next spreadsheet tonight, so I'm going to go get dinner 
18:03:58  <sgk_> hang on, doing one last check for newer issues 
18:04:53  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  We'll get those next week 
18:05:01  <bdbaddog>     ko. 
18:05:15  <sgk_> even if they might require another 0.98.x? 
18:05:33  <sgk_> fair enough 
18:06:03  <sgk_> if anything looks really urgent we can convene by ML or IRC as necessary 
18:06:09  <sgk_> thanks... 
18:06:09  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  yep 
18:06:23  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, see you guys later 
18:06:31  <sgk_> later 
18:06:38  <bdbaddog>     l8r. 
18:06:43  *      bdbaddog (n=[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has left #scons 

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.