-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 313
IrcLog2008 08 18
William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016
·
2 revisions
17:27:40 * 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
18:58:18 <garyo-home> Hi folks; who's here so far?
19:00:12 * stevenknight (n=[stevenkn@c-98-234-62-147.hsd1.ca.comcast.net](mailto:stevenkn@c-98-234-62-147.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)) has joined #scons
19:00:27 <stevenknight> hello again
19:00:39 <garyo-home> Hi Steven.
19:02:16 <stevenknight> do we have a quorum?
19:02:25 <garyo-home> Just me and you so far I think.
19:02:31 <stevenknight> fair enough
19:02:52 <garyo-home> We can look at the [ParseConfig](ParseConfig) one. Good patience with that one!
19:03:01 <garyo-home> (1500)
19:04:56 <stevenknight> thnx
19:05:26 <garyo-home> Cygwin actually does the same thing.
19:05:27 <stevenknight> greg's got a point re: translating paths that come from anywhere outside, not just [ParseConfig](ParseConfig)
19:05:29 * Greg_Noel is no longer marked as being away
19:05:31 <Greg_Noel> Hey, it's after 19h00; I'm late
19:05:41 <garyo-home> Hi Greg.
19:05:44 <stevenknight> so it is... :-)
19:06:01 <garyo-home> We're just looking at 1500 ([ParseConfig](ParseConfig) and msys)
19:06:30 <garyo-home> If the mapping can always be done backwards, we could just have a .msys_path like .win32_path.
19:06:43 <Greg_Noel> OK, I'm there.
19:06:47 <stevenknight> no, that's the reverse of what he wants
19:06:55 <stevenknight> this is on input, not output
19:07:24 <stevenknight> i agree that a .msys path might be useful, but that's orthogonal
19:07:45 <stevenknight> right now i'm leaning towards 2.0
19:07:45 <garyo-home> Maybe not though. On msys, shouldn't gcc be called with all msys paths?
19:07:49 <Greg_Noel> If I understand what Steven wrote, it should be done when the name is looked up (i.e., in Entry())
19:08:16 <stevenknight> i think Greg's right in larger sense
19:08:26 <stevenknight> but i'm more nervous about unintended side effects there
19:08:42 <stevenknight> for now, i think we mark it 2.0 p3
19:08:46 <garyo-home> Yes, you need to translate msys -> win32, but maybe also win32 -> msys.
19:08:52 <Greg_Noel> I'll go with that.
19:08:54 <stevenknight> and the implementation can be hashed out by whoever gets stuck with it
19:08:57 <garyo-home> But anyway I agree w/ 2.0 p3 unknown person.
19:09:06 <stevenknight> garyo, you might be right re: needing to pass msys paths to some tools
19:09:19 <stevenknight> done
19:09:26 <stevenknight> 1500: 2.0 p3 draft_choice_to_be_named_later
19:09:42 <garyo-home> 2176 consensus 1.0.x p2 ludwig?
19:09:42 <Greg_Noel> Ludwig
19:09:43 <stevenknight> cool
19:09:48 <Greg_Noel> He's said he plans to hang around
19:10:12 <stevenknight> 2176 done
19:10:17 <Greg_Noel> 2177: Don't get me wrong; I think it should be applied ASAP. It's just that niggling little thing about the policy. Steve's point about the policy evolving is a good one, and I have to admit that the rebuild would be for a pretty rare corner case, so I'm not going to argue for 2.0 very hard (i.e., not really at all). And let's not forget that it gives the user a very cool way of seeing what SCons thinks is in the directory. I do worry about it not being sorted; I think the test harness has sorting turned on and I don't know if it's on normally.
19:11:02 <garyo-home> Sorting is vital. Exceptions are OK as long as they're properly documented, IMHO.
19:11:17 <garyo-home> (Exceptions... to the no-rebuild policy)
19:11:26 <stevenknight> agree re: sorting
19:11:52 <stevenknight> and re: exceptions
19:12:04 <stevenknight> my only hesitation is that it does start down the slippery slope
19:12:07 <Greg_Noel> I think we need to apply the patch and then try it out under some not-test conditions to see if the names are sorted.
19:12:09 <garyo-home> If no-rebuild were really a showstopper for someone we could show them how to turn it off.
19:12:22 <garyo-home> turn this feature off.
19:12:27 <stevenknight> right
19:12:48 <stevenknight> but turn it off by making the sorting configurable? or by showing them how to modify that spot in the code?
19:12:55 <stevenknight> making it configurable complicates applying the patch a little...
19:13:15 <garyo-home> IMHO: modify the code. I think nobody will complain and we won't have to do it. Configurability would be a waste.
19:13:20 <Greg_Noel> No, only sort when calculating the contents, not when using the children.
19:14:09 <stevenknight> hmm, i think we've had this discussion re: directory sorting before
19:14:10 <Greg_Noel> I agree with Gary FOR THIS CASE.
19:14:42 <Greg_Noel> It's only significant for directories
19:15:07 <Greg_Noel> the order of the children doesn't matter
19:15:05 <garyo-home> I'm not worried about slippery slope; as long as we try hard not to cause rebuilds, then most releases won't (because of the policy). If we end up with too many of those, we batch them up.
19:15:25 <stevenknight> garyo: agreed
19:15:39 <garyo-home> greg: right, like the order of children of an Alias doesn't matter. Just the sig. I agree.
19:15:49 <stevenknight> okay, i'm with you guys
19:15:58 <garyo-home> OK, sounds like we're all on board for 1.0.x p2(or p1)
19:16:06 <stevenknight> 2177: 1.0.x p[12] anyone
19:16:17 <Greg_Noel> p2, p1 is for emergencies
19:16:24 <stevenknight> suppose we ought to make "anyone" more specific....
19:16:25 <Greg_Noel> Ludwig
19:16:40 <garyo-home> either will get done (p1 or p2), I say p2.
19:16:41 <stevenknight> Ludwig++
19:16:46 <garyo-home> fine.
19:16:49 <stevenknight> 1.0.x p2 Ludwig
19:16:49 <Greg_Noel> done
19:16:50 <stevenknight> done
19:16:54 <stevenknight> 2178:
19:17:05 <Greg_Noel> consensus
19:17:17 <garyo-home> sure. p3, split the difference?
19:17:24 <stevenknight> 2.0 p3 Ludwig
19:17:25 <stevenknight> done
19:17:31 <stevenknight> 2179:
19:17:35 <Greg_Noel> Will the 2.3 floor be in 1.0.1?
19:17:43 <garyo-home> whole rest of the page is consensus.
19:17:50 <stevenknight> cool
19:17:51 <stevenknight> go us
19:18:02 <garyo-home> Greg: I didn't think so...
19:18:08 <stevenknight> no, updating floor is what 2.0 is about
19:18:19 <Greg_Noel> warning
19:18:26 <garyo-home> But we could start warning maybe?
19:18:35 <stevenknight> we're already warning
19:18:37 <Greg_Noel> er, will the 2.3 warning be in 1.0.1?
19:18:48 <stevenknight> if we've settled on 2.3
19:18:49 <Greg_Noel> but for 2.2
19:19:12 <stevenknight> i haven't yet been compelled that 2.3 gives us that much more than 2.2
19:19:14 <garyo-home> I'm staying out of this one this time.
19:19:30 <stevenknight> so far it's the tarfile module and a couple of Ludwig's patches
19:19:36 <stevenknight> am i overlooking anything?
19:19:48 <garyo-home> tarfile is not insignificant though.
19:19:59 <stevenknight> true
19:20:07 <Greg_Noel> Well, it seems to be the floor for a lot of other Python-based projects; go with the flow
19:20:25 <stevenknight> why start now? :-)
19:20:32 <Greg_Noel> point
19:20:48 <bdbaddog> I vote for 2.3
19:20:51 <bdbaddog> :)
19:20:57 <Greg_Noel> Hi, Bill
19:21:00 <stevenknight> i'm not balking at tarfile per se
19:21:01 <garyo-home> Google says 19000 hits for "oldest supported python version 2.2" but 96,000 for "... 2.3". :-)
19:21:16 <stevenknight> it's the idea that we're going to let what other modules do/don't use decide for us
19:21:35 <stevenknight> instead of making the decision based on the actual underlying features supported
19:21:40 <stevenknight> (or by real user data, which we don't have)
19:22:22 <stevenknight> and for "oldest supported python version 1.5." one hit? us?
19:22:26 <bdbaddog> I still haven't gotten any responses in the couple of emails I floated to the user mailing list indicating that they were unable to move forward to any particular version of python for use by the build tools.
19:22:30 <stevenknight> :-)
19:22:37 <Greg_Noel> The problem is that it's a decision based on positioning from next year; all we can do is guess.
19:22:58 <Greg_Noel> I just think 2.3 will be a better floor by then.
19:23:37 <stevenknight> well, shall we open up the "2.0 time frame" can of worms too, then?
19:23:52 <bdbaddog> even if it was today. I think 2.3 is a good floor. what distros do you exclude? Also take into account that any projects (opensource) which will use scons to build themselves will only be released with newer versions of current distros.
19:23:56 <stevenknight> greg, I know you have it in mind for ~6 months from now, right?
19:23:58 <Greg_Noel> No, let's drop it. I was just curious.
19:24:22 <Greg_Noel> 2.0 in six months? About right.
19:24:30 <garyo-home> bdbaddog: RHEL3 I think has 2.2. But that was 2003 or earlier.
19:25:10 <bdbaddog> yup, and as I said, no projects which are on rhel3 will be updated, so requiring newer python won't be barier to distro builders.
19:25:24 <Greg_Noel> Figure one month for 1.0.1 and another for 1.0.2; two months for 1.1; two more for 2.0
19:25:39 <garyo-home> at a bare minimum!
19:26:03 <Greg_Noel> yeah, that's pushing it, all right, but it's what you've said you want to do.
19:25:56 <bdbaddog> you see 2.0 as a linear progression from 1.1 ?
19:26:18 <garyo-home> me?
19:26:20 <Greg_Noel> How couldn't it be?
19:26:33 <Greg_Noel> you == you guys
19:26:46 <bdbaddog> (you = greg noel)
19:26:49 <bdbaddog> sorry bout that.
19:27:21 <garyo-home> greg: I think it's aggressive, but let's see what our newly expanded team can get done.
19:27:37 <Greg_Noel> No, I originally figured a year for 1.x cycles; you guys have wanted it faster.
19:27:22 <bdbaddog> I see 2.0 branched from 1.0, work removing 1.5.2 limitations started, in parallel 1.0.1 and 1.1 getting merged to 2.0. 2.0 in a few months.
19:28:10 <Greg_Noel> bdbaddog, ain't gonna happen; not enough resources to work two branches.
19:28:16 <garyo-home> bdbaddog: +1 on branching for 2.0 soonish. But not too soon because of possible merge headaches.
19:28:19 <stevenknight> but a year based on...? a specific set of features that merit 2.0? fixing "all" of the 1.x issues?
19:29:00 <Greg_Noel> There are too many issues in 1.x now; fixing all of them would take two years.
19:29:10 <garyo-home> let's focus on some bugs now. I don't think we can decide 2.0 release date tonight.
19:29:11 <stevenknight> agreed
19:29:16 <stevenknight> but
19:29:20 <stevenknight> okay, garyo's right
19:29:24 <stevenknight> take this to the ML
19:29:28 <Greg_Noel> works
19:29:29 <bdbaddog> :)
19:29:45 <stevenknight> where were we?
19:29:52 <garyo-home> The 2006h1 sheet
19:30:01 <bdbaddog> should I float another can you move to 2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5 python for a new release mail?
19:30:06 <Greg_Noel> 1377
19:30:12 <Greg_Noel> oops, 1388
19:30:19 <stevenknight> bdbaddog: hold off, don't think we'll get much better info than last time
19:30:21 <garyo-home> bdbaddog: can only help to get us some real user info.
19:30:38 <garyo-home> I defer to steven.
19:31:06 <garyo-home> Greg: is there a Poll module for moinmoin?
19:31:22 <Greg_Noel> Um, not sure; I think there's something
19:31:48 <stevenknight> doesn't it RSS feed? I think i've seen Google Reader offer to let me subscribe
19:32:00 <garyo-home> anyway, 1388 should be 2.0 unless it's a special case that can be addressed earlier.
19:32:03 <stevenknight> or maybe that's GR polling...
19:32:16 <garyo-home> stevenknight: sorry, I meant a way to take a user poll with questions and a graph of results.
19:32:17 <stevenknight> yes, 2.0
19:32:18 <stevenknight> p2
19:32:25 <stevenknight> ah
19:32:38 <stevenknight> i don't know what I was thinking, Unicode getting "solved" in 1.x...
19:32:42 <Greg_Noel> 1388 needs to know what the system encoding is; that's a function in 2.3
19:32:47 <stevenknight> 1388: 2.0 p2 hero
19:32:53 <garyo-home> ok, 1388 2.0 p2 someone.
19:32:56 <Greg_Noel> done {;-}
19:33:13 <garyo-home> 1392: Greg, look again?
19:33:25 <stevenknight> 1392: 1.x p3 me
19:33:40 <Greg_Noel> garyo-home, look at what?
19:33:43 <garyo-home> (oh, you already did.)
19:34:00 <Greg_Noel> done
19:34:01 <garyo-home> never mind. I think you had an out-of-place line in the ssheet or something. Or maybe it was me.
19:34:19 <Greg_Noel> I moved it just before we started.
19:34:34 <garyo-home> 1399 closed, 1409?
19:34:38 <garyo-home> Sorry, 1402
19:35:05 <garyo-home> Steven: I'd really like the vstudio stuff. There's some work already done. Should it wait for 1.x?
19:35:15 <garyo-home> (vsvars.bat etc.)
19:35:46 <stevenknight> garyo-home: pretty sure it won't be ready in the 1.0.x time frame
19:35:56 <stevenknight> unless you're referring to specific issues with patches that could integrated early
19:36:01 <garyo-home> ok, 1.x then. It makes more sense there anyway.
19:36:19 <stevenknight> 1402: 1.x p2 me?
19:36:22 <garyo-home> No, I mean ripping out all the registry junk and just parsing the output of vs/vcvars.bat.
19:36:31 <Greg_Noel> all the [VisualStudio](VisualStudio) stuff is 'anytime'
19:36:32 <garyo-home> 1402: 1.x p2 steven.
19:36:36 <stevenknight> that would be a god intermediate step
19:36:55 <stevenknight> good
19:36:59 <stevenknight> 1406:
19:37:22 <garyo-home> I don't like the submitted patch.
19:37:28 <garyo-home> Too specialized.
19:37:48 <stevenknight> agreed
19:37:54 <garyo-home> Has anyone retried it recently to see if it's still broken?
19:37:58 <stevenknight> research jim
19:38:03 <garyo-home> OK.
19:38:05 <Greg_Noel> done
19:38:10 <stevenknight> 1417:
19:38:31 <stevenknight> research me [VisualStudio](VisualStudio) keyword
19:38:37 <Greg_Noel> anytime, stevenknight, [VisualStudio](VisualStudio)
19:38:45 <Greg_Noel> all the [VisualStudio](VisualStudio) stuff is 'anytime'
19:39:04 <Greg_Noel> meaning not tied to a release schedule
19:39:00 <stevenknight> done
19:39:06 <stevenknight> 1418: research david
19:39:15 <stevenknight> Greg_Noel: right
19:39:19 <garyo-home> That's not 100% right, the actual problem is you can't use $SOURCES.(any-attr) if your source list may be empty.
19:39:20 <Greg_Noel> done
19:39:28 <garyo-home> Sorry I'm still on 1417 here.
19:39:55 <garyo-home> I'm OK w/ 1418 research david though.
19:40:36 <Greg_Noel> 1417: garyo-home, is that true?
19:41:17 <garyo-home> Sure, because it expands to an empty list (None) which has no .windows attribute.
19:41:35 <Greg_Noel> Not empty list []?
19:41:52 <stevenknight> ouch, that fact eluded me. that's bad
19:41:53 <garyo-home> [].windows wouldn't work either.
19:42:01 <Greg_Noel> That could be an easy fix, if that's all that's wrong.
19:42:17 <garyo-home> Expand to something other than None or emptylist?
19:42:27 <Greg_Noel> Doesn't it iterate over the list, applying the attribute?
19:42:53 <garyo-home> Don't know. Steven?
19:42:56 <stevenknight> it should
19:43:08 <stevenknight> they're supposed to be a list like object that does that
19:43:15 <stevenknight> but i could see that the expansion order might be wrong
19:43:28 <Greg_Noel> research, stevenknight?
19:43:28 <stevenknight> and it might "efficiently" return an actual list, not the object
19:43:46 <stevenknight> at some point where it then tries to apply the attribute too late
19:43:49 <stevenknight> yes, research stevenknight
19:43:53 <garyo-home> ok
19:43:55 <Greg_Noel> done
19:44:03 <Greg_Noel> That endeth this list...
19:44:10 <garyo-home> nice!
19:44:11 <stevenknight> garyo: good catch
19:44:14 <garyo-home> thx
19:44:21 <stevenknight> all right, done with 2006
19:44:36 <Greg_Noel> garyo++
19:44:50 <stevenknight> everyone have time to wade into the 1.{0.x,x} re-triaging?
19:44:54 <bdbaddog> gotta run.
19:44:58 * bdbaddog (n=[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-3-114.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-3-114.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has left #scons
19:44:59 <garyo-home> Sure, a bit.
19:45:10 <Greg_Noel> 'nite, Bill
19:45:31 <Greg_Noel> I have all night, until my wife wants to watch Olympics again...
19:47:48 <Greg_Noel> Gary, Steven and I seem to be in agreement for most of the 1.0 retriage issues; if you concur, we're done.
19:47:54 <stevenknight> greg+gary: looks like a lot of consensus in the 1.0.x retriage
19:47:57 <stevenknight> done
19:48:04 <garyo-home> What do we need for 2071: do we make up our own or use an existing one? I have an old emacs release I signed for FSF we could use.
19:48:17 <garyo-home> From my quick look, I don't disagree w/ any of them.
19:48:44 <stevenknight> 2071: there's an existing SCons release that assigns ownership to SCons Foundation
19:48:51 <stevenknight> two versions, one for employer, one for employee
19:48:59 <stevenknight> because it assigns ownership it scares corporate lawyers
19:49:20 <garyo-home> great. So it's just getting people signed up?
19:49:31 <stevenknight> if we go with our current one
19:49:36 <garyo-home> I think I already signed one, now that I think about it. ???
19:49:47 <stevenknight> we can make it less scary by finding a version that lets them just license to us under our same MIT trms
19:49:52 <stevenknight> garyo-home: yes, youdid
19:50:13 <stevenknight> needs some research time to google for examples of other projects who have done that
19:50:26 <stevenknight> and maybe run it by our SFLC lawyer
19:50:34 <Greg_Noel> I feel left out; nobody asked me ;-(
19:50:45 <garyo-home> it was a long long time ago.
19:51:08 <stevenknight> yes, it was enough of a bother relative to the benefit we were getting that i got lazy and dropped it
19:51:24 <Greg_Noel> There are several samples on the net; I found one for Python and Mozilla pretty easily.
19:51:25 <stevenknight> i mean, it involves talking to lawyers... :-/
19:51:49 <stevenknight> i thought those were ownership agreements
19:51:53 <stevenknight> bt that's from a long time ago
19:52:02 <stevenknight> so i could be out of date
19:52:43 <garyo-home> ok, well glad we have something at least.
19:52:51 <Greg_Noel> IANAL, but I think all it has to do is agree to license under MIT terms
19:53:00 <stevenknight> yes, that's right
19:53:23 <garyo-home> Wow, there's quite a long retriage list for 1.0.x.
19:54:00 <stevenknight> yeah
19:55:28 <stevenknight> i'm thinking we should take this part off line
19:55:33 <garyo-home> too much for me tonight.
19:55:34 <stevenknight> rather than get started on it right now
19:55:37 <stevenknight> exactly
19:55:50 <stevenknight> greg, i see you've started on the spreadsheet
19:55:54 <stevenknight> if you can do your update
19:55:56 <Greg_Noel> Maybe meet again tomorrow?
19:56:05 <garyo-home> I'll work on that for next week though, as well as actually getting some contributions in :-/
19:56:11 <stevenknight> and gary, if you have time to at least skim it in the next day or so for any places where you disagree with greg+me?
19:56:17 <Greg_Noel> Actually, I've been through it once, but I only annotated those I thought should change
19:56:19 <garyo-home> yes, definitely.
19:56:21 <stevenknight> me too re: contributions
19:56:42 <garyo-home> good. Next week, same time, same place?
19:56:59 <stevenknight> works for me, so far as i know
19:57:03 <Greg_Noel> If there's a consensus of three, whoever's the third should just do it.
19:57:05 <stevenknight> we're going to be in the middle of moving again, unfortunately
19:57:13 <Greg_Noel> again?
19:57:15 <stevenknight> Greg_Noel: just do it ++
19:57:19 <stevenknight> yes
19:57:24 <stevenknight> our landlord is in foreclosure
19:57:25 <garyo-home> makes sense to me too.
19:57:27 <stevenknight> welcome to california
19:57:39 <Greg_Noel> But don't californicate...
19:57:40 <garyo-home> Steven: right, you were wrestling with that last week.
19:57:44 <stevenknight> LOL
19:57:49 <garyo-home> Too bad!
19:58:07 <garyo-home> Maybe your new place will be better anyway?
19:58:07 <stevenknight> yeah, we ended up finding a better place, but still have the hassle now of actually moving
19:58:12 <garyo-home> :-)
19:58:38 <garyo-home> well good luck with it.
19:58:46 <stevenknight> thnx
19:58:51 <Greg_Noel> When's the deadline to move? Should we consider delaying 1.0.1 until the end of the week?
19:58:51 <garyo-home> I'm going to get some sleep now, g' night.
19:59:06 <stevenknight> no, keep it on schedule
19:59:21 <Greg_Noel> ok, that makes triaging harder, but we'll do what we can.
19:59:34 <Greg_Noel> Gary, you still there?
19:59:40 <garyo-home> yes.
20:00:12 <Greg_Noel> Oh, I already said that; old age: I'll just repeat that if you form the consensus, just mark the issue.
20:00:21 <garyo-home> Will do.
20:00:29 <Greg_Noel> then g'night all
20:00:35 <garyo-home> ok, c u later.
20:00:44 <stevenknight> okay, i'm going to go see if i can find the right combination of ubuntu hardy packges to build the doc...
20:00:47 * Greg_Noel has been marked as being away
20:00:54 <stevenknight> and then maybe get a checkpoint release out
20:01:00 <stevenknight> 'night
20:01:09 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
20:01:15 <garyo-home> Steven: what about my pkg list on the wiki?
20:01:18 <garyo-home> Oh well, he's gone.
20:01:21 <Greg_Noel> too late
20:01:30 <garyo-home> ok, bye now.
20:01:35 <Greg_Noel> 'nite
20:01:40 * garyo-home has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.1/2008070208]")