IrcLog2008 09 22
William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016
·
2 revisions
18:48:49 * 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
19:04:12 * stevenknight (n=[stevenkn@c-67-169-176-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net](mailto:stevenkn@c-67-169-176-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)) has joined #scons
19:04:21 <stevenknight> hey garyo-home
19:04:28 * [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away
19:04:37 <stevenknight> anyone else here?
19:04:48 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hey, I just got here; give me a minute.
19:04:54 <garyo-home> Hi Steven. I'm trying to get some spreadsheet bugs marked up, but am too slow :-(
19:05:01 <garyo-home> Hi, Greg.
19:05:23 <stevenknight> i just got home
19:05:31 <stevenknight> have to walk the dog first...
19:05:38 <stevenknight> should be ~10 minutes
19:05:50 <stevenknight> do what you can to start and i'll catch up
19:05:49 <garyo-home> OK, I'll work on my spreadsheet comments
19:05:56 <stevenknight> thanks
19:14:07 <garyo-home> OK, I'm more or less ready; Greg are you there?
19:17:25 <garyo-home> Anyone?
19:17:56 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hi, I went to get some tea...
19:18:28 <garyo-home> Hi. Shall we start?
19:19:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> sure
19:19:13 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2198
19:19:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I don't understand your comment
19:19:53 <garyo-home> Can we get the OP to add the 1.5.2 changes too?
19:20:13 <stevenknight> back
19:20:15 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> If he has one. 1.5.2 is getting pretty rare.
19:21:06 <garyo-home> I just mean to modify all the files he mentioned, to get rid of .sources and .implicit -- that's what he's proposing, right?
19:21:06 <stevenknight> maybe if it doesn't apply cleanly to 1.5.2 we delay to 2.x
19:21:10 <stevenknight> more incentive to get it out
19:21:24 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> hmmm... not a bad idea
19:21:35 <garyo-home> From looking at the bug, I think that's better
19:21:47 <garyo-home> 2.0 Ludwig p3?
19:22:17 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> do you mean 2.0 or 2.x?
19:22:23 <garyo-home> 2.x is fine.
19:22:28 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> works
19:22:36 <stevenknight> 2.x, with a note re: pulling it in if works w/1.5.2
19:22:45 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:22:50 <garyo-home> I think he says it won't.
19:22:51 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2199
19:23:12 <garyo-home> Your gmake file manip functions. I like it.
19:23:32 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'm a bit reluctant to commit to 1.x, but I can give it a shot
19:23:50 <garyo-home> Good; if it slips, it slips. No big deal -- a nice-to-have feature.
19:24:09 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, 1.x p3 or p4?
19:24:22 <stevenknight> p4 if it's that slippable
19:24:27 <garyo-home> Seems like there's a lot in 1.x already...
19:24:34 <stevenknight> yep
19:24:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> yeah
19:24:48 <garyo-home> ok, 1.x p4 greg.
19:24:54 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:25:14 <garyo-home> 2200 you guys want in 1.x too, but I'm skeptical.
19:25:24 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'm swayed by Steven's argument.
19:25:52 <garyo-home> Would any Execute clear all node caches?
19:26:06 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I agree that #2 would be more work, so I'll go for 2.x
19:26:13 <garyo-home> (Do we even really care about caching during reading SConscripts?)
19:26:27 <garyo-home> OK, 2.x p3 Ludwig then?
19:26:29 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Yes, any Execute() of an Action we don't provide.
19:26:45 <stevenknight> i think any Execute() should clear its targets
19:26:52 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> (Yes, we care; it avoids disk hits, which cost time.)
19:27:00 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Execute() has no targets.
19:27:02 <garyo-home> But we won't know the targets w/ proposal #2.
19:27:12 <stevenknight> right, that's why i favor proposal #2
19:27:29 <stevenknight> wait, i see what you mean
19:27:33 <stevenknight> i read that as "w/out"
19:27:38 <stevenknight> hmm
19:28:30 <garyo-home> maybe we shouldn't design it here, just mark as "needs discussion" or something
19:28:42 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> agree, but where?
19:29:02 <garyo-home> 2.x p3 (mark in the issue itself, in the text)
19:29:55 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, I'll make myself a CC
19:29:58 <stevenknight> (sorry, interrupt)
19:30:09 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Should I add you two as well?
19:30:14 <stevenknight> okay, 2.x p3
19:30:17 <stevenknight> yes, cc me
19:30:24 <garyo-home> ok. Or just paste in this section of the irc log :-)
19:30:30 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> That, too
19:30:43 <stevenknight> okay, done?
19:30:49 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'd like it a bit sooner; maybe 2.x p2?
19:30:57 <stevenknight> i can go with p2
19:31:00 <garyo-home> ok w/ me
19:31:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:31:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2201
19:31:13 <garyo-home> 2201: I just asked the OP for a testcase.
19:32:07 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> It's not clear to me what he wants; Nodes have cached info, not Executors.
19:32:13 <garyo-home> Steven, if you think it's a real issue maybe 1.x/p3/Ludwig is the way to go.
19:32:25 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Let's see what he offers and review it next time.
19:32:36 <garyo-home> ok w/ me.
19:32:40 <garyo-home> defer.
19:33:05 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> stevenknight, OK?
19:33:18 <stevenknight> (sorry, more interrupts)
19:33:37 <garyo-home> I think so
19:33:38 <stevenknight> well, just because i think it's an issue doesn't mean it is
19:33:41 <stevenknight> i haven't done the triage
19:34:00 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Let's look at it again next time, then
19:34:01 <stevenknight> so getting a test case seems like it should come before committing the resources
19:34:14 <stevenknight> done, ask for test case and re-triage
19:34:18 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:34:21 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2204
19:34:23 <garyo-home> 2204: I like Steven's idea of just a better error with more context.
19:35:34 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'm not sure I understand what Seven is suggesting
19:35:20 <garyo-home> We need more developers.
19:35:31 <stevenknight> garyo-home: agreed
19:35:36 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> yes
19:35:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Is Mati still around?
19:36:14 <garyo-home> Good question. I'll look him up.
19:37:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Steven, if you know how to fix 2204, do you really think it should be 1.2?
19:37:19 <stevenknight> [GregNoel](GregNoel): all those errors come through the env.arg2nodes() methods that translate strings to Nodes
19:37:39 <stevenknight> that provides a place for some code to catch the mismatch between factory and returned Node
19:38:02 <garyo-home> At least print some context to help the user find the bug.
19:38:21 <stevenknight> right now the underlying lookup that catches it return a normal Python [TypeError](TypeError) because I thought I was being "pythonic" in throwing [TypeError](TypeError) for those mismatches
19:38:25 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hmmm... OK, I'll trust you. a2n is called a lot, so it can't be slowed down too much.
19:38:35 <stevenknight> fair point
19:38:44 <stevenknight> 1.2, p3, me?
19:38:51 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:38:51 <garyo-home> Right, but he's just going to catch the [TypeError](TypeError) and throw something else. No slowdown.
19:38:59 <stevenknight> done
19:39:01 <stevenknight> 2205:
19:39:30 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2205: dup 1957?
19:39:36 <stevenknight> there's too much in 1.x, i'm going with you guys on 2.x
19:40:15 <garyo-home> I think it has to be 2.x unfortunately. Could be dup of 1957; there's a patch in 1957 too, not sure of its quality
19:40:23 <garyo-home> (I didn't really look at it)
19:40:30 <stevenknight> it's pretty extensive
19:40:38 <stevenknight> not clear to me it's a dup without more triage
19:40:44 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> defer?
19:41:22 <garyo-home> I think it is a dup, at least 1957 tries to convert all exceptions into [BuildFailures](BuildFailures), and 2205 is an exception coming through.
19:41:33 <garyo-home> ([TaskmasterException](TaskmasterException))
19:43:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Either defer for more triage or Gary for research?
19:43:20 <stevenknight> defer
19:43:40 <garyo-home> ok, I'll research and if it's a dup I'll mark it as such.
19:44:02 <stevenknight> thanks
19:44:06 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:44:26 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2207
19:44:31 <garyo-home> 2207: works as designed imho
19:45:14 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Yeah, but IOError is not cool
19:45:29 <stevenknight> agree w/Greg
19:45:44 <stevenknight> stack traces scare users
19:46:06 <garyo-home> ... but finding everywhere scons opens a file and seeing if the i/o err is due to dangling symlink could be a big mess.
19:46:09 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> It probably should throw the same error that the Taskmaster throws for a missing source
19:46:43 <stevenknight> right, but it doesn't have to be absolutely everywhere
19:46:44 <garyo-home> Actually I claim a missing source err would be even more confusing to users.
19:46:51 <stevenknight> just take care of this one and make the world that much better
19:47:12 <garyo-home> mumble, ok I guess
19:47:16 <stevenknight> there aren't *that* many places where do a direct open like this
19:47:26 <stevenknight> usually it's under get_contents() or something
19:47:35 <garyo-home> good point
19:47:50 <stevenknight> okay, done
19:47:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:48:01 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> er, wait
19:48:08 <garyo-home> steven?
19:48:11 <stevenknight> yes?
19:48:19 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> did we agree on milestone and priority?
19:48:22 <garyo-home> are you taking it?
19:48:24 <stevenknight> oh
19:48:32 <stevenknight> yeah, i'll take it
19:48:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ok, when?
19:48:50 <stevenknight> 1.x p4
19:48:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:49:04 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2208
19:49:36 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'd like to know what the performance impact will be, but I like the idea of a warning that's always on.
19:49:45 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> er, defaults to on.
19:50:32 <garyo-home> agree w/ greg
19:50:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> is it a dup of 'ancient bug'?
19:51:13 <stevenknight> 'ancient bug'?
19:51:23 <garyo-home> let me see...
19:51:33 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Gary says he filed an 'ancient bug' on it.
19:52:30 <stevenknight> ah
19:52:29 <garyo-home> Can't find it anymore.
19:52:52 <stevenknight> i think 1.x, p3, me
19:52:59 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, if we find it later, we'll worry about it then.
19:53:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:53:15 <stevenknight> note re: vaidating performance impact before submitting
19:53:21 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> right
19:53:40 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2209
19:54:10 <stevenknight> future
19:54:36 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> it's in script support, so it may not even be relevant to other front-ends
19:54:40 <garyo-home> future p4 ok w/ me, unless I'm missing something
19:54:50 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> future p4 it is
19:55:02 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2210
19:55:11 <stevenknight> shoot, i'm going to have to stop soon
19:55:20 <garyo-home> me too, sorry.
19:55:29 <garyo-home> We can do a few more
19:55:50 <garyo-home> 2210: future p2?
19:55:53 <stevenknight> 2210: future p2
19:55:55 <stevenknight> done
19:55:55 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'll take it as anytime, but not soon
19:56:01 <garyo-home> 2211 anytime p5 steven?
19:56:24 <stevenknight> done
19:56:28 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:56:40 <garyo-home> 2212 is vs_revamp
19:56:50 <stevenknight> yes, vs_revamp
19:56:56 <garyo-home> soon I hope
19:56:58 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> How should I mark it?
19:57:10 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> dup of something?
19:57:28 <stevenknight> no, 1.x p3, add [VisualStudio](VisualStudio) keyword
19:57:33 <stevenknight> put david's name on it
19:57:33 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:57:51 <stevenknight> 2213: 2.x p4
19:58:11 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
19:58:20 <stevenknight> 2215 i just closed
19:58:32 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> no, open is a function; file is a type.
19:58:49 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> It may not be obvious, but there's a distinction.
19:59:01 <stevenknight> yes, but i submit it's not crucial for 1.5.2 compatibility
19:59:09 <stevenknight> which only has old-style classes anyway
19:59:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> good point.
19:59:17 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, done
19:59:31 <stevenknight> all right, gotta run
19:59:33 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> last one
19:59:42 <stevenknight> right
19:59:48 <garyo-home> 2216?
19:59:47 <stevenknight> 2216: anytime p5 me
19:59:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
20:00:06 <stevenknight> okay, catch you guys next week
20:00:21 <garyo-home> ok, sounds good. Will try to get my 1.1 issues done!
20:00:22 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Next week, or should we go for two weeks?
20:00:31 <stevenknight> i'll probably send email re: trying for a different time
20:00:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> When's the RC coming out?
20:00:42 <stevenknight> my transportation situation has changed a bit so this time isn't working as well
20:00:56 <garyo-home> actually now that you mention it every week is beginning to be a family issue :-/
20:00:56 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, we'll look for the message
20:01:01 <stevenknight> is that this week? (you'd think i'd read the roadmap... :-))
20:01:18 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> yes, next week is supposed to be 1.1
20:01:20 <stevenknight> yeah, i'm not popular at home on Monday nights... :-(
20:01:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Charger football!!!
20:01:33 <stevenknight> okay, i'll get an RC out in the next day or two
20:01:45 <garyo-home> we can discuss scheduling bug parties later...
20:01:47 <stevenknight> oh, man, Greg, sorry things are starting so rocky for you guys
20:02:04 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> don't tell me; it's being [TiVoed](TiVoed)
20:02:18 <stevenknight> i meant the season, not tonight
20:02:22 <stevenknight> tough losses
20:02:27 <stevenknight> especially to ^AS#(*& Denver
20:02:43 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> yeah, two losses by a total of three points. There ought to be a law...
20:03:01 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Or we should kill all the lawyers, as Shakespere says (the ref is a lawyer)...
20:02:57 <stevenknight> all right, i'm out of here
20:02:59 <stevenknight> later...
20:03:06 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
20:03:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> G'night
20:03:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'm going to go watch the game; cu later.
20:03:46 <garyo-home> bye
20:03:55 * [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away
20:04:10 * garyo-home has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.1/2008070208]")