IrcLog2009 02 19

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
17:16:22  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away 
17:25:49  *      stevenknight (n=[stevenkn@67.218.109.115](mailto:stevenkn@67.218.109.115)) has joined #scons 
17:26:06  <stevenknight> hey nait 
17:27:16  <stevenknight> hey [GregNoel](GregNoel) 
17:29:29  <nait> Unfortunately, I needed to get a ride home today, so I'm going to miss the bug party.  I'll try to be around at 8:30 for discussions about fixers and 2.0 
17:30:08  <stevenknight> okay 
17:30:19  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm here... 
17:30:23  <stevenknight> i may not be able to connect then 
17:30:31  <stevenknight> looks like a lot going on this evening... 
17:31:20  <stevenknight> hi greg 
17:31:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Fair warning: I seem to have caught the bug that the kids have been passing around, so I'm a bit under the weather and liable to be slow tonight. 
17:31:32  <stevenknight> okay 
17:31:37  <stevenknight> shall we get started then? 
17:31:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, Steven... and Nate? 
17:31:54  <stevenknight> nait's here for now but has to leave 
17:32:09  <stevenknight> no sign of Brandon or Bill 
17:32:13  <stevenknight> and Gary's still on vacation 
17:32:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     So a bit on the thin side. 
17:32:44  <stevenknight> yeah 
17:32:58  <stevenknight> but we can still do what we can 
17:33:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yup 
17:33:06  <stevenknight> and defer as necessary 
17:33:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yup 
17:33:05  <nait> Yeah, sorry.  I don't have a car today, so I'm at the whim of my co-worker. 
17:33:20  <stevenknight> nait: understood, been there myself 
17:33:38  <stevenknight> so where did we leave off? 
17:33:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I think 2288 is next; we hadn't finished with it. 
17:33:49  <stevenknight> right 
17:34:10  <stevenknight> oh, I thought we agreed right before the end to defer 2288 to next week 
17:34:12  <stevenknight> and close 2289 
17:34:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I thought we said "next time" but I'm willing to bypass it. 
17:34:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll ask for more info 
17:34:50  <stevenknight> right, meant "next time" 
17:34:57  <stevenknight> okay, done 
17:35:22  <stevenknight> 2303:  research, me? 
17:35:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2303, I seem to be collecting the symlink issues 
17:35:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     but you're welcome to research it {;-} 
17:35:41  <stevenknight> er, I meant, research, gregnoel? 
17:35:44  <stevenknight> :-) 
17:35:57  <stevenknight> sorry, it's this frog in my throat... :-) 
17:36:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     It can't be worse than mine. 
17:36:34  <stevenknight> if you have other symlink issues then it probably does make more sense with you 
17:36:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     This isn't the same as the other issues, which are related to making a symlink a first-class node type 
17:37:15  <stevenknight> seems like it'd be in the same ballpark, though 
17:37:32  <stevenknight> if the FS.* hierarchy is going to understand symlinks anyway 
17:37:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll research it, but I suspect I'll be tossing it back. 
17:37:45  <stevenknight> i'm okay with it being your call, though 
17:37:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:37:52  <stevenknight> that's fine 
17:37:53  <stevenknight> done 
17:37:59  <stevenknight> 2304:  research, me? 
17:38:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, but you've got to start catching up on those (as do I with mine) 
17:38:43  <stevenknight> yep, i agree 
17:39:04  <stevenknight> i'm going to try to make it a priority after landing vs_revamp on the trunk 
17:39:20  <stevenknight> i have to remember that the idea isn't necessarily to solve them all 
17:39:28  <stevenknight> but at least characterize them enough to slot them elsewhere... 
17:39:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2306, sigh, I'll come up with a proposal 
17:39:41  <stevenknight> anyway 
17:39:45  <stevenknight> 2304:  research, sgk 
17:39:46  <stevenknight> done 
17:39:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes, exactly 
17:39:51  <stevenknight> 2306:  research, gregnoel 
17:39:58  <stevenknight> done 
17:39:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:40:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2309, as you request 
17:40:27  <stevenknight> 2309:  1.3, p2, sk, +vs_revamp 
17:40:28  <stevenknight> done 
17:40:51  <stevenknight> 2311 
17:41:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     the only one with a consensus... 
17:41:12  <stevenknight> to do this one right has larger implications about making the Builder (or action) configurable 
17:41:47  <stevenknight> 2.x p2 feels right 
17:42:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'd think it would always be rebuilt if a source changes; when would it not? 
17:42:03  <stevenknight> are we still okay leaving 2.x issues as TBD / future draft pick? 
17:42:31  <stevenknight> trivial case:  your target is built by just concatenating the sources 
17:42:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     not 2.x p2; too soon in the future 
17:42:40  <stevenknight> you don't care about the name change then 
17:42:57  <stevenknight> but you could argue that we should go ahead and rebuild anyway 
17:43:19  <stevenknight> on the theory that it's generally safer, and we don't need the extra complexity for the corner case 
17:43:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yes, you do; the source could have different contents; that's the bug here. 
17:43:27  <stevenknight> no, the source has the same contents 
17:43:37  <stevenknight> if the contents are different, then the MD5 checksum difference triggers a rebuild 
17:43:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Not what the bug said, as I recall. 
17:44:25  <stevenknight> checking now;... 
17:44:27  <stevenknight> but I doubt it 
17:45:19  <stevenknight> ouch, you're right 
17:45:20  <stevenknight> as usual 
17:45:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     {;-} 
17:45:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The bug is probably that it's checking the _old_ source, rather than the new one. 
17:47:40  <stevenknight> ah, yes 
17:47:48  <stevenknight> very likely 
17:47:53  <stevenknight> okay, give it to me 
17:47:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:49:01  <stevenknight> 2312:  2.x p3 managan 
17:48:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2312, I agree. 
17:49:02  <stevenknight> done 
17:49:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2311, I wish I had some of those drugs right now 
17:49:41  <stevenknight> 2313:  defer to next time and hope someone else comes up with a better idea for tackling packaging issues? 
17:50:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2312, I'm inclined to close it as invalid: we only support one package per run right now 
17:50:08  <stevenknight> ah 
17:50:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     or wontfix 
17:50:25  <stevenknight> how about just turn it into a feature request, then? 
17:50:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     feature request, hmmm, yeah, makes sense 
17:50:57  <stevenknight> a packaging system that can't let you build more than one at a time seems pretty limited 
17:51:22  <stevenknight> so...  feature request, 3.x p3? 
17:51:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yeah, sounds right. 
17:51:39  <stevenknight> and an invitation to scratch the itch sooner if he wants to contribute a patch 
17:51:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     good point 
17:52:24  <stevenknight> done 
17:52:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2338, 2.1 p4 is fine 
17:52:45  <stevenknight> done 
17:52:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2339, ditto 
17:52:50  <stevenknight> done 
17:52:52  <stevenknight> gregnoel on both? 
17:53:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm... 
17:53:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Nate, you still here? 
17:54:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Nate has been working with me on the fixers; this might be in his ballpark 
17:54:13  <stevenknight> that sounds good 
17:54:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Not to mention I suspect I'll be zoned out when 2.0 is out after supervising all those fixers. 
17:54:25  <stevenknight> how about putting his name on and you guys can negotiate if that's not okay with him 
17:54:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yeah, I'll do that. 
17:55:07  <stevenknight> right re: zoned out 
17:55:34  <stevenknight> okay, 2338+2339:  2.1 p4 Nate 
17:55:35  <stevenknight> done 
17:55:41  <stevenknight> 2346:  consensus invalid 
17:55:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2346, done 
17:56:15  <stevenknight> 2347:  ... 
17:56:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2347, sk to follow up? 
17:56:23  <stevenknight> 2.x p3 sk 
17:56:30  <stevenknight> no 
17:56:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:56:32  <stevenknight> research p3 sk 
17:56:37  <stevenknight> so i'll follow up sooner 
17:56:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     better; I agree 
17:56:56  <stevenknight> done 
17:57:08  <stevenknight> 2349:  anytime p4 gregnoel? 
17:57:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2349, I guess that's what I get... 
17:57:22  <stevenknight> :-) 
17:57:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, but make it p2 
17:57:42  <stevenknight> okay 
17:57:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     get it out of the way 
17:57:52  <stevenknight> good point 
17:57:53  <stevenknight> done 
17:57:57  <stevenknight> on to 2004h2? 
17:58:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Wow, you updated the spreadsheet that quickly; I can't even navigate today... 
17:58:54  <stevenknight> small advantage of the laptop, the touchpad keeps the fingers closer to home row... 
17:59:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No quorum for schedule items, so yeah, let's look at a few from 2004 
17:59:37  <stevenknight> 851:  too old to mess with, invalid (or worksforme) 
18:00:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     worksforme worksforme 
18:00:07  <stevenknight> :-) 
18:00:11  <stevenknight> done 
18:00:14  <stevenknight> 860:  already closed 
18:00:16  <stevenknight> 863: 
18:00:34  <stevenknight> agree w/your suggestion of dup'ing these 
18:00:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll do it 
18:00:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     not tonight, though.. 
18:01:01  <stevenknight> the survivor should be p2 so it stays near top of list, i think 
18:01:05  <stevenknight> agreed re: not tonight 
18:01:24  <stevenknight> 914:  research 
18:01:27  <stevenknight> maybe me 
18:01:37  <stevenknight> fresh eyes would help 
18:01:49  <stevenknight> but I don't know if anyone else has an itch to scratch re: collecting test results 
18:02:00  <stevenknight> it's been somewhat superceded by going with Buildbot 
18:02:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     somewhat 
18:03:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Buildbot is nice, but I find it limiting; I've wanted to fiddle with it, but I don't have the most-recent stuff 
18:02:39  <stevenknight> yeah, research sk is the right call here 
18:03:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     914, research is good; close it if it's no help any more 
18:03:32  <stevenknight> we should chat about Buildbot plans some other time (when you're more up to it) 
18:03:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     concur 
18:03:42  <stevenknight> we're probably going to be doing some buildbot work for the day job 
18:03:59  <stevenknight> would be nice to do things that benefit us too 
18:04:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     true 
18:04:01  <stevenknight> anyway 
18:04:13  <stevenknight> 923:  1.3 p3 sk +vs_revamp 
18:04:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     923, done 
18:04:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     and don't forget the new Python support systems; they could run buildbots 
18:04:59  <stevenknight> snakebite or whatever it's called? 
18:05:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yeah, that's it. 
18:05:24  <stevenknight> yeah, definitely worth keeping in mind 
18:05:38  <stevenknight> especially if it helps with Windows and non-POSIXy platforms 
18:05:44  <stevenknight> 924:  already closed 
18:05:57  <stevenknight> 939:  already closed 
18:06:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     947, needs to be someone with a DOS box 
18:06:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Maybe Gary? 
18:06:34  <stevenknight> is it high enough priority? 
18:06:40  <stevenknight> since his time is limited.. 
18:06:54  <stevenknight> sure 
18:06:58  <stevenknight> let's assign to gary 
18:07:12  <stevenknight> and invite negotiation if he wants to throw it back 
18:07:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     good; milestone and priority? 
18:07:31  <stevenknight> anytime, p2? 
18:07:35  <stevenknight> p2 to get it out of the way 
18:07:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done {;-} 
18:08:01  <stevenknight> done 
18:08:13  <stevenknight> 960:  3.x p[34]? 
18:08:19  <stevenknight> do we want a separate doc issue, too? 
18:08:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I like your comment; p4 it is. 
18:08:39  <stevenknight> okay 
18:09:01  <stevenknight> done 
18:09:15  <stevenknight> 961:  okay with 2.x p3? 
18:09:25  <stevenknight> 3.x feels too far out for some useful functionality 
18:09:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yeah, you make a good point in your comment.  How about 2.x p4? 
18:09:58  <stevenknight> done 
18:10:24  <stevenknight> 977:  research?  who? 
18:10:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     977, the wiki page is out, but few review comments...  (hint, hint) 
18:11:04  <stevenknight> fair point 
18:11:14  <stevenknight> give 977 to me, then 
18:11:32  <stevenknight> so i'll have a reminder to comment if i haven't done so by the time I try to clear my research pile 
18:11:47  <stevenknight> 977:  research, sk 
18:11:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK; this one is an old issue, mind, so it may be moot by now 
18:11:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:11:55  <stevenknight> right 
18:11:59  <stevenknight> 982:  already closed 
18:12:24  <stevenknight> 988:  consensus invalid 
18:12:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:12:46  <stevenknight> 993:  1.3 p2 sk, +vs_revamp 
18:12:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:13:13  <stevenknight> 1003:  consensus invalid 
18:13:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1003, invalid 
18:13:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:13:33  <stevenknight> 1012:  consensus 3.x p3 
18:14:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1012, yes, with your ammendment 
18:14:21  <stevenknight> 1017:  consensus invalid 
18:14:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1017, invalid 
18:14:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:14:46  <stevenknight> 1019:  2.x p3 sk? 
18:15:07  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is still reading the comment 
18:15:45  <stevenknight> np 
18:16:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, your funeral; done 
18:16:16  <stevenknight> :-) 
18:16:43  <stevenknight> 1033:  3.x, p[your call], +TaskmasterNG 
18:16:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:17:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (I think I'll make it p2 to keep it above the herd) 
18:17:41  <stevenknight> sounds good 
18:17:48  <stevenknight> and we're just coming to the exit for my stop 
18:17:53  <stevenknight> excellent work tonight 
18:18:03  <stevenknight> many thanks, especially given how you're feeling 
18:18:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     good timing; and I'm starting to sweat, so maybe the fever is breaking. 
18:18:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Good time to quit 
18:18:31  <stevenknight> yep 
18:18:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, cul, and thanks. 
18:18:45  <stevenknight> and you 
18:18:46  <stevenknight> later 
18:18:50  *      stevenknight has quit ("Leaving") 
21:12:03  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away 

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.