IrcLog2008 05 27

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
13:05:55  *      Azverkan (n=[fakeuser@](mailto:fakeuser@ has joined #scons 
16:48:00  *      stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-46e723d28b1b3479) has joined #scons 
16:55:25  <stevenknight> [GregNoel](GregNoel):  are you here yet? 
16:55:53  *      garyo-home (n=[]( has joined #scons 
16:58:09  <garyo-home>   hi folks 
16:58:45  <stevenknight> hi gary 
16:58:57  <stevenknight> Greg doesn't seem to be here yet 
16:59:55  <garyo-home>   ok, I'm just starting in on the spreadsheet. 
16:59:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hello, am I late? 
17:00:01  <garyo-home>   nope, just in time. 
17:00:09  <stevenknight> hi Greg 
17:00:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     We have relatives in town; we were out with them and just got back. 
17:00:41  <stevenknight> ah, special thanks for making it, then 
17:00:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Give me a sec to get set up 
17:00:47  <stevenknight> hope we're not taking you away too much 
17:01:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, we'll see them again tomorrow. 
17:02:13  <stevenknight> BTW, on the [ReadWrite](ReadWrite) page, the 2007 Q1 link takes you to the same sheet as the Q4 link 
17:02:16  <stevenknight> or takes me there, anyway 
17:02:46  <stevenknight> unlikely we'll get that far today, of course, but for next week 
17:03:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yeah, the spreadsheet isn't ready yet. 
17:03:02  <garyo-home>   Unfortunately I only have 45 min tonight :-( 
17:03:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'm ready 
17:03:22  <stevenknight> okay, 2061 
17:03:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Why only 45 min? 
17:03:35  <garyo-home>   kid duty 
17:03:49  *      stevenknight nods knowingly... 
17:04:14  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) gets to miss all that fun... 
17:04:21  <stevenknight> 2061:  1.x p3? 
17:04:24  <garyo-home>   Before we talk about the actual issues, can I ask about 1.x vs. 2.x in general? 
17:04:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sure 
17:04:29  <stevenknight> sure 
17:04:33  <stevenknight> jinx 
17:04:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     jinx 
17:04:42  <garyo-home>   How much should we put into 1.x vs. deferring to 2.x? 
17:04:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Depends on how long you expect 1.x to last 
17:05:02  <garyo-home>   2061 is easy, for instance.  But so are *lots* of others. 
17:05:07  <stevenknight> i think we'll need to rebalance 1.x once we get past 1.0 anyway 
17:05:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     stevenknight, true 
17:05:16  <garyo-home>   Greg: right.  Is there a 2.0 schedule? 
17:05:44  <garyo-home>   Are we thinking 2.0 this year for instance? 
17:05:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     None, other than some people say one month and some say one year.  Probably between the two. 
17:06:00  <stevenknight> yeah 
17:06:00  <garyo-home>   Greg: OK, that's sort of my thought too. 
17:06:13  <stevenknight> my best guess is some time in Q4 
17:06:19  <stevenknight> enough time for 1.x to soak 
17:06:22  <garyo-home>   OK, then I say 2061 should be 1.x. 
17:06:30  <stevenknight> i'm okay with gut feel 
17:06:41  <stevenknight> if we'd "like" something in 1.x for any reason, mark it as such 
17:06:55  <stevenknight> we'll end up with too much 1.x, but then we just re-prioritize those to make it manageable 
17:06:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I assume that once 1.0 is out and we've killed a little more of the backlog, we'll look at 1.x (and maybe 2.x p1) and adjust. 
17:07:05  *      stevenknight agrees w/GregNoel 
17:07:15  <stevenknight> so 2061:  1.x p3 
17:07:43  <garyo-home>   stevenknight: ok 
17:07:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Isn't 2061 the one that's just been on the mailing list? 
17:07:54  <stevenknight> 2062:  moot, I went ahead and checked in my fix about half an hour ago...  :-) 
17:08:06  <garyo-home>   2062: good 
17:08:19  <stevenknight> also already RESOLVED the issue 
17:08:26  <garyo-home>   2064 is also easy, so by same logic should be 1.x 
17:08:30  <stevenknight> 2064:  consensus 1.x p3 
17:08:31  <stevenknight> right 
17:08:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok 
17:08:51  <garyo-home>   2064 ok 
17:08:53  <stevenknight> 2065:  consensus 1.x p4, Rob Managan 
17:09:40  <garyo-home>   2066: VS8 is the current version, we should support it well if we can 
17:09:45  <garyo-home>   (though I don't use it yet) 
17:09:55  <stevenknight> 2066:  i'm conflicted 
17:10:09  <stevenknight> the fix looks like a no-brainer, but... 
17:10:11  <garyo-home>   Then let's do it in 1.x early on 
17:10:24  <garyo-home>   like 1.x p1? 
17:10:35  <stevenknight> yes, 1.x p1 
17:10:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:10:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     next is consensus 
17:10:53  <garyo-home>   yes. 
17:10:55  <stevenknight> 2067:  consensus dup 
17:11:01  <garyo-home>   I'll take 2068, good idea. 
17:11:11  <stevenknight> 2068:  cool, thanks 
17:11:16  <garyo-home>   I'll take up details on the list. 
17:11:27  <stevenknight> i'd like p2 (since I need it too  :-)) 
17:11:45  <garyo-home>   OK, fine w/ me. 
17:11:55  <stevenknight> excellent, we're cruising 
17:12:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done with the "current" spreadsheet, then; move on to the next? 
17:12:03  <stevenknight> on to 2007 q4? 
17:12:47  <stevenknight> 1740:  consensus research, David 
17:12:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:13:15  <stevenknight> 1741:  1.x p3, stevenknight 
17:13:27  <garyo-home>   ok w/ me 
17:13:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok 
17:14:05  <garyo-home>   1742 is a subprocess issue or something? 
17:14:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I saw it as an issue with assuming that setting CC forced the C compiler selection 
17:14:48  <stevenknight> 1742:  i'm concerned it's a real problem that happens to be triggered by his weird stripped down CC = _ 
17:14:59  <stevenknight> hmm, let me look at it again w/that in mind -- hang on... 
17:15:26  <garyo-home>   That code doesn't look right to me; the high 8 bits are supposed to be spawn status, the low 8 bits are return code 
17:15:54  <garyo-home>   (or other way around, sorry) 
17:16:03  <stevenknight> but if it that code were that blatantly wrong, a lot of stuff would fail, not just this edge case 
17:16:20  <garyo-home>   stevenknight: yeah, I take it back -- it's OK as written 
17:16:30  <stevenknight> i think the real problem here is that this compilation setting definitely shouldn't succeed 
17:16:42  <stevenknight> but we pass back a return value that suggests the test passed 
17:16:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, setting CC is ignored, so TryXXX will succeed. 
17:17:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     He's expecting that setting CC will _disable_ the C compiler 
17:17:30  <garyo-home>   anyway, research is needed. 
17:17:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll take it. 
17:18:01  <garyo-home>   But has to be fixed by 1.x one way or another, so that's my vote. 
17:18:12  <stevenknight> okay, i can go with 1.x 
17:18:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:18:39  <garyo-home>   1745, VS junk 
17:18:54  <stevenknight> 1745:  basically, i'm going to take everything VS-related as research 
17:19:04  <garyo-home>   OK w/ me, this is super low pri. 
17:19:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, stevenknight, research 
17:19:39  <stevenknight> yeah, i'm just going to revamp VS support pretty heavily 
17:19:44  <garyo-home>   1746: untangle threaded output 
17:19:55  <garyo-home>   This is really hard, and error-prone. 
17:20:15  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     It's a dup; mark it and triage that one. 
17:20:21  <stevenknight> i'm okay with dup 
17:20:21  <garyo-home>   2.x p3? 
17:20:28  <stevenknight> 2.x p3 
17:20:29  <garyo-home>   (ok, dup) 
17:20:37  *      bdbaddog (n=[]( has joined #scons 
17:20:38  <stevenknight> on 1183 is fine 
17:20:44  <stevenknight> hey bill 
17:20:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     hi, bill 
17:20:50  <stevenknight> we're on th 2007 q4 spreadsheet 
17:20:52  <bdbaddog>     Hi. 
17:20:57  <stevenknight> #1746, line 51 
17:21:00  <garyo-home>   Hi, Bill. 
17:21:02  <bdbaddog>     oh yeah. forgot there's a bug party. 
17:21:22  <bdbaddog>     I've gotta hit the road in like 10 minutes. So I'll be of no help today. sorry. 
17:21:22  <stevenknight> no problem, you're obviously welcome if you have cycles 
17:21:34  <stevenknight> that's cool 
17:21:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2.x p3 on 1183; agreed. 
17:21:40  <stevenknight> done 
17:22:08  <stevenknight> 1747:  documentation, 1.0 p5 (like a lot of other doc issues) 
17:22:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, done 
17:22:24  <garyo-home>   I seem to have a few doc things; assign it to me. 
17:22:47  <stevenknight> 1748:  1.x p2 -- our code looks like it handles this right 
17:22:56  <stevenknight> i really suspect this is in custom code for this project 
17:23:15  <garyo-home>   Push back, ask for testcase? 
17:23:24  <stevenknight> hmm, not a bad idea 
17:23:41  <stevenknight> oh, wait, unfortunately i think this is one where the *user* of a project submitted something to us 
17:23:54  <stevenknight> that does suggest pushing it back, having him contact the original project 
17:24:17  <stevenknight> i'll go ahead and answer the bug to that effect 
17:24:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     how about me, research, and I'll untangle it. 
17:24:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I can try a test case. 
17:24:55  <stevenknight> if you want, sure, go ahead 
17:25:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; next? 
17:25:22  <stevenknight> 1.x, p2, greg -- done 
17:25:40  <stevenknight> 1751:  1.x p3, me 
17:25:49  <stevenknight> i think it's related to the other above, and #2015 
17:25:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:25:50  <garyo-home>   agreed 
17:26:12  <stevenknight> 1753:  visual studio:  research, stevenknight 
17:26:15  <garyo-home>   1753: dup? 
17:26:27  <stevenknight> maybe, just assign it to me and i'll take care of it if so 
17:26:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:26:55  <stevenknight> 1754:  i think i put my comment on the wrong item, i think i intended that for 1753 
17:27:26  <garyo-home>   1754 looks right to me. 
17:27:29  <garyo-home>   not a bug. 
17:28:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     not a bug, a feature request. 
17:28:18  <stevenknight> right, maybe for a --clobber that will remove .sconsign* 
17:28:21  <stevenknight> or some such 
17:28:23  <garyo-home>   (I put my .sconsign and .sconf_temp stuff in my build dir, that way if I wipe that out I start from scratch.) 
17:28:29  <stevenknight> good idea 
17:28:39  <garyo-home>   stevenknight: ok w/ that I guess 
17:28:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     scons -ccc 
17:28:58  <garyo-home>   :-/ 
17:29:06  <stevenknight> sure, i could go with that 
17:29:15  <stevenknight> either way, FEATURE... 
17:29:16  <stevenknight> 2.x? 
17:29:20  <garyo-home>   2.x 
17:29:24  <stevenknight> p3 
17:29:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     We discussed this once before 
17:29:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, 2.x p3 
17:29:44  <stevenknight> probably, they all start to blur after a while...  :-) 
17:30:05  <stevenknight> 1755:  1.x p4, Greg 
17:30:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1755, consensus 
17:30:30  <garyo-home>   ok 
17:30:34  <stevenknight> 1760:  research, Rob 
17:30:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
17:30:56  <garyo-home>   ok 
17:30:56  <stevenknight> 1761:  gary, you okay with 1.x p3? 
17:31:01  <stevenknight> and still on your plate 
17:31:15  <garyo-home>   ok, I'll try to do it. 
17:31:19  <garyo-home>   It would be cool. 
17:31:28  <stevenknight> yes 
17:31:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:32:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     484 (actually 1762) 
17:32:09  <garyo-home>   1762: general problem with ancient OSes (IRIX tar is even worse) 
17:32:18  <stevenknight> 1762:  1.x p4, Greg, dup to 484 as you see fit 
17:32:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Tar will be replaced by tarfile as soon as 1.5.2 is obsolete 
17:32:43  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I already have it working 
17:32:47  <garyo-home>   yay 
17:33:08  <stevenknight> i thought tarfile didn't show up until like Python 2.4 
17:33:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I have backported it to 2.2 
17:33:38  <stevenknight> [GregNoel](GregNoel)++ 
17:33:59  <stevenknight> and i was wrong anyway, it's 2.3 
17:34:01  <stevenknight> cool 
17:34:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     but I couldn't backport it to 1.5.2; too many @staticfoo annotations 
17:34:14  <stevenknight> makes sense 
17:34:27  <stevenknight> so this definitely 2.x, but high priority 
17:34:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     agreed 
17:34:26  <garyo-home>   1763: I think is user error. 
17:34:35  <garyo-home>   He wants this to work: 
17:34:42  <garyo-home>     cplusplus = <ins>import</ins>('g++', globals(), locals(), []) 
17:34:51  <garyo-home>   (sorry I'm getting ahead) 
17:34:56  <stevenknight> 162:  2.x p2, or even p1, your call 
17:34:59  <stevenknight> 1762 that is 
17:35:21  <stevenknight> 1763:  oh, did i misread it? 
17:35:31  <stevenknight> I thought he was complaining about the Tool() call within the .generate() function 
17:35:44  <garyo-home>   Seems like he thinks tools should appear in sys.path. 
17:35:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1763, agreed 
17:36:06  <garyo-home>   Give 1763 to me and I'll reply to it, see if I can clear up the confusion. 
17:36:15  <stevenknight> 1763:  okay 
17:36:20  <garyo-home>   I have new doc for site_scons which should help anyway. 
17:36:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:36:57  <stevenknight> 1764:  solaris 
17:37:12  <stevenknight> and shall we see if maxim can become the solaris guy? 
17:37:25  <stevenknight> meant to say:  1764:  research 
17:37:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me; will you talk to him? 
17:37:36  <stevenknight> ok 
17:38:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     research, stevenknight, hand off to maxim 
17:38:27  <stevenknight> done 
17:38:51  <stevenknight> 1766:  2.x p3? 
17:39:03  <garyo-home>   what about 1765 
17:39:10  <garyo-home>   future/p1? 
17:39:25  <stevenknight> sorry, 1765: 
17:39:47  <stevenknight> future p1 stevenknight 
17:39:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1765, future, p1 
17:40:14  *      bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.") 
17:40:30  <stevenknight> done 
17:40:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1766 
17:40:45  <stevenknight> 1766:  2.x p3? 
17:40:50  <garyo-home>   1766: not really a bug, is it? 
17:40:59  <stevenknight> it's weird 
17:41:16  <garyo-home>   stevenknight: sure is, but is it a bug? 
17:41:16  <stevenknight> he gives it one .class file as a target and --debug=tree shows him the dependencies of another 
17:41:37  <garyo-home>   ok, I can see it being confusing. 
17:41:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     They're circularly dependent, so it's doing the right thing there 
17:42:07  <stevenknight> i think it's because it's showing the "primary" dependency of the executor that creates all of the [ABC].class files 
17:42:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     but it should also report on B.class and C.class with the same tree 
17:42:20  <garyo-home>   [GregNoel](GregNoel): ideally yes 
17:42:23  <stevenknight> right 
17:42:43  <garyo-home>   anyway, I can't see putting it in 1.x 
17:42:55  <stevenknight> 2.x p3, me? 
17:42:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Make it dependent on batch builders and review when that is fixed. 
17:43:09  <garyo-home>   ok w/ me 
17:43:49  <garyo-home>   1769: 1.x p2? 
17:43:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     do we want to triage 1086 now (batch builders) as 2.x p3? 
17:44:31  <garyo-home>   [GregNoel](GregNoel): batch has to be in 2.x IMHO 
17:44:31  <stevenknight> 1086:  i see that as 1.x 
17:44:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     a small conflict ... 
17:45:06  <garyo-home>   stevenknight: is it possible to get into 1.x?  If so, go for it! 
17:45:14  <stevenknight> i think so 
17:45:23  <garyo-home>   Huge performance win 
17:45:23  <stevenknight> people have been waiting a long time for it 
17:45:29  <stevenknight> and it would be a huge performance win 
17:45:33  <garyo-home>   :-) 
17:45:39  <stevenknight> give it to me for 1.x 
17:45:48  <stevenknight> and i'll definitely push it out (again) if it's too hairy 
17:45:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     what priority? 
17:45:49  <stevenknight> p2 
17:45:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:46:21  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) thinks stevenknight is crazy... 
17:46:43  *      stevenknight thinks so, too 
17:46:13  <stevenknight> 1769:  greg and i said future, gary you suggested 1.x 
17:46:45  <garyo-home>   Greg wants to do it right, I want to hack it so it works. :-) 
17:47:03  <garyo-home>   ... but then let Greg do it right later. 
17:47:10  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     hmmm... 
17:47:27  <garyo-home>   but whatever you guys think on this one. 
17:47:36  <stevenknight> i'm agnostic, so i'm content letting you two fight it out...  :-) 
17:47:49  <garyo-home>   in that case Greg it's up to you. 
17:47:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Maybe Gary and I should talk about this off-line 
17:47:58  <garyo-home>   So future it is. 
17:48:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:48:09  <stevenknight> okay 
17:48:35  <stevenknight> 1772:  this sounds pretty serious, but beyond 1.0 
17:48:39  <stevenknight> so 1.x p2 (if not p1) 
17:48:52  <garyo-home>   agreed 
17:48:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1.x p2 
17:49:00  <stevenknight> done 
17:49:11  <stevenknight> 1831:  realized we can probably close this out with reference to Progress() 
17:49:21  <garyo-home>   yes, I do it now that way. 
17:49:22  <stevenknight> which provides a hook for the user to print out the target 
17:49:40  <garyo-home>   I've even posted my progress func on the list iirc. 
17:49:49  <stevenknight> I'll go ahead and close this out real time while we continue 
17:49:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:50:30  <stevenknight> 1832:  moot, David Cournapeau already dup'ed it to 2004 
17:50:49  <garyo-home>   good. 
17:51:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1833 
17:52:07  <stevenknight> 1833:  assign to me (i have some other --debug=explain work already on my plate) 
17:52:12  <stevenknight> 1.x 
17:52:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, what priority? 
17:52:22  <stevenknight> p4 because it's back-burner for David? 
17:52:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:53:18  <garyo-home>   1838 seems familiar? 
17:53:31  <stevenknight> 1838:  think i fixed that when I did Value nodes recently 
17:53:41  <stevenknight> i'm inclined to close it on that basis 
17:53:42  <garyo-home>   ah yes, now I remember. 
17:53:57  <stevenknight> but that's without hard evidence that it's the same problem 
17:54:12  <garyo-home>   Sohail can reopen if it doesn't work on next release. 
17:54:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok 
17:55:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1842 
17:55:21  <garyo-home>   is that Fortran problem or something else? 
17:55:23  <stevenknight> okay, I'll close it -- i didn't notice it's Sohail, that makes it all right to close it unilaterally... :-) 
17:55:45  <stevenknight> 1842 sounds really weird to me 
17:56:09  <garyo-home>   Must be Fortran; I say David should look at it. 
17:56:22  <garyo-home>   1.x p3 for him 
17:56:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:56:34  <stevenknight> done 
17:56:59  <stevenknight> 1844:  1.x p2, we should do right by 64-bit systems 
17:57:08  <stevenknight> i'll be glad to take it 
17:57:12  <garyo-home>   ok w/ me 
17:57:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, make 20xx a dup? 
17:58:04  <garyo-home>   ok 
17:58:37  <stevenknight> done 
17:58:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1862 
17:58:42  <garyo-home>   1862: 1.x p3, consensus? 
17:58:46  <stevenknight> yes 
17:58:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:59:06  <garyo-home>   1869: 2.x p3? 
17:59:07  <stevenknight> 1869:  i said 1.x but could easily go 2.x 
17:59:10  <stevenknight> done 
17:59:11  <stevenknight> 2.x p3 
17:59:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok 
17:59:38  <stevenknight> 1771:  same, i put down 1.x but don't feel strongly about it 
18:00:15  <garyo-home>   I'm not a Java guy so I'll stay out of 1771, and now I'm about to turn into a pumpkin.  I'll leave my window open so I can review the rest of the goodies :-)  See you guys later... 
17:59:40  <Azverkan>     brandon here, fyi re 1844 the entire windows registry is screwy in 64 bit python, not just the visual studio stuff 
18:00:26  <Azverkan>     it should probably fixed in the upstream registry package somehow 
18:00:39  <garyo-home>   Azverkan: that is a good idea. 
18:00:43  <stevenknight> hi brandon 
18:01:00  <Azverkan>     at work so I'm just watching 
18:01:01  <stevenknight> agree re: some more comprehensive fix in how we deal with the registry 
18:01:27  <stevenknight> wrap up all of these in a function that will look in both 32-bit and 64-bit locations 
18:01:36  <stevenknight> without having to sprinkle that logic all over the rest of the modules 
18:01:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (1771 isn't a registry problem, do you mean 1869?) 
18:01:50  <Azverkan>     1844 
18:03:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ah, way back there... 
18:04:36  <stevenknight> okay, back to 1771: 
18:04:51  <stevenknight> 2.x p2? 
18:05:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm torn 
18:06:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     It does seem specialized, so 2.x p2 is reasonable. 
18:06:50  <stevenknight> okay, let's go with that 
18:06:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok 
18:07:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Next spreadsheet? 
18:07:07  <stevenknight> on to 2007q3? 
18:08:01  <stevenknight> 1687:  INVALID or else a doc issue w.r.t. [SideEffect](SideEffect)() files not getting cleaned 
18:08:16  <stevenknight> i didn't look to see what (if anything) we say about that... 
18:08:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     However, the TeX builders now are using [SideEffect](SideEffect) to specify optional files; that was in a REVIEW not too long aga 
18:08:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ago 
18:09:08  <stevenknight> um, grep [SideEffect](SideEffect) Tools/*tex*.py turns up nothing 
18:09:16  <stevenknight> the TeX tools are using emitters, not [SideEffect](SideEffect) 
18:09:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Well, it's what Rob said he was doing... 
18:09:53  <stevenknight> oh, maybe that's in a pending patch -- let me do another quick search 
18:10:32  <stevenknight> hmm, still not finding anything like that 
18:10:35  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is doing a search of his own... 
18:10:56  <stevenknight> was he saying [SideEffect](SideEffect) as in the function, or "side effect" as in colloquial expression for "additional files created by TeX" 
18:12:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm...  Not sure.  I read it as "[SideEffect](SideEffect)" but he could have just been imprecise. 
18:13:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     There's no internal API for side effects; the only entry is [SideEffect](SideEffect)(), so your search is sufficient 
18:14:20  <stevenknight> well, even if TeX starts using it (i could see that for things like logs) i think the right way to handle it would be to also specify Clean() on the [SideEffect](SideEffect)() files 
18:14:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I guess that makes it a doc issue. 
18:14:32  <stevenknight> okay, 1.0 p3 doc 
18:14:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, I'll write it up that way. 
18:15:08  <stevenknight> done 
18:15:21  <stevenknight> 1689:  1.x p2, who? 
18:16:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     not me.  I'm curious about it, but I think I'm too UNIX-centric 
18:16:58  <stevenknight> hmm, i think Gary might be off with the kids, and we're only on our second issue in this spreadsheet 
18:17:08  <stevenknight> shall we call it a night? 
18:17:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm willing 
18:17:38  <stevenknight> okay, sounds good 
18:17:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     With three sets of relatives in town these past few days, I didn't get much farther than we are now 
18:18:05  <stevenknight> not bad, though, we made pretty good progress 
18:18:19  <stevenknight> any conflict for you w/next Monday same time (17h00)? 
18:18:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, I don't think so; let me check 
18:19:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Monday the 2nd is good for me 
18:19:43  <stevenknight> okay, that'll be the stake in the ground 
18:19:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll publish it 
18:20:12  <stevenknight> do you have cycles to update the bugs or shall I handle that translation? 
18:20:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll get some spreadsheets for the next couple of times as well 
18:20:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, I can handle it as long as my network is alive 
18:20:45  <stevenknight> still flaky? 
18:21:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Much better, but bandwidth is down 
18:21:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     There were probably some burned wires that haven't been replaced yet 
18:21:38  <stevenknight> yow 
18:22:01  <stevenknight> all right, i'm off to get back to other things 
18:22:11  <stevenknight> many thanks... 
18:22:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, cul 
18:22:27  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away 
18:22:34  *      stevenknight has quit ("Leaving") 
18:54:11  *      garyo-home has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) [Firefox]") 
21:28:01  *      Azverkan has quit ("[BX] Time to make the donuts") 

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.