IrcLog2009 08 25

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
16:41:57  *      garyo-home (n=[]( has joined #scons 
16:50:31  *      stevenknight (n=[]( has joined #scons 
16:51:41  <garyo-home>   Hi Steven; how's things? 
16:54:35  <stevenknight> hey gary -- too much going on, as usual, but okay 
16:54:36  <stevenknight> you? 
16:54:41  <garyo-home>   about the same. 
16:57:04  *      stevenknight tries to catch up on the spreadsheet 
16:58:49  *      garyo-home is doing the same 
17:01:11  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away 
17:01:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Looks like there are at least three of us tonight... 
17:01:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     As I said in my email, I can only stay a half-hour, so we should get started. 
17:02:16  <garyo-home>   ok, fine w/ me.  I think someone is coming later too. 
17:02:31  *      bdbaddog (n=[]( has joined #scons 
17:02:33  <garyo-home>   2426 is the first... 
17:02:42  <garyo-home>   Hi Bill! 
17:03:07  <bdbaddog>     Hi 
17:03:14  <garyo-home>   Looking at 2426. 
17:03:45  <garyo-home>   I don't think tool*chain* redesign will help this issue particularly, I vote to put something reasonable in for 3.x. 
17:03:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I still think it's invalid, and if we want an issue to make it configurable, we should add a new one. 
17:04:24  <garyo-home>   I'd be OK with that, but it'll be pretty similar to this one. 
17:04:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     but I'll go for 3.x with a change of subject 
17:04:34  <bdbaddog>     3.x 
17:04:39  <garyo-home>   ok w/ me. 
17:04:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done, unless Steven has something 
17:05:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (He's the other "invalid" vote) 
17:05:03  <stevenknight> 2426 is invalid 
17:05:10  <stevenknight> he doesn't specify CPPPATH 
17:05:38  <stevenknight> he'd have to add /usr/include to CPPPATH to find that <set> in preference to the current dir 
17:05:56  <stevenknight> we can't know in advance what system directories a given compiler will search on its own 
17:05:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Er, in that case, I'm back to invalid 
17:05:42  <bdbaddog>     invalid, open a new bug to make configurable 
17:05:50  <garyo-home>   steven: I take your meaning, but still it ought to be configurable.  (Maybe Greg's right, should be a new issue.) 
17:06:08  <stevenknight> configurable how?  you can configure it right now in CPPPATH 
17:06:30  <stevenknight> CPPPATH=['/usr/include/directory_containing_set'] would make his configuration work 
17:06:33  <garyo-home>   A search for a <> header should *never* match one in the current dir. 
17:06:36  <bdbaddog>     whether it looks in . first or last. 
17:06:54  <garyo-home>   (gcc and msvc don't look in . at all for <>) 
17:07:29  <stevenknight> okay, got it -- agree, new issue for configuring that behavior 
17:07:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:07:53  <garyo-home>   ok, 2427 
17:08:24  <garyo-home>   Unfortunately this hack is what we have for now, I think we need to doc it. 
17:08:45  <bdbaddog>     doc +1 
17:09:04  <stevenknight> agree, doc 
17:09:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     maybe doc with a note that it will disappear? 
17:09:20  <garyo-home>   ... when a better mechanism is implemented.  Sure. 
17:09:44  <garyo-home>   The main thing wrong with it is it's global, and we really need a per-File thing. 
17:09:57  <garyo-home>   But anyway that's a different point. 
17:10:12  <stevenknight> thought it was per-environment, so it can be configured 
17:10:25  <garyo-home>   Sorry, right it is per-env, but per-File is better. 
17:10:27  <stevenknight> but I agree w/Greg's point about an Archive() being better in the long term 
17:11:03  <garyo-home>   I'm not 100% sure about how that would work but am willing to go with it for now. 
17:11:16  <stevenknight> doc it 
17:11:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     is that a consensus? 
17:11:27  <garyo-home>   +1 
17:11:27  <stevenknight> but should we mention it disappearing if we don't know what the replacement will be? 
17:11:34  <stevenknight> that would bug me as a user 
17:11:46  <bdbaddog>     I'd say doc it, once we have a plan to replace, then add that to doc. 
17:11:52  <stevenknight> +1 
17:11:56  <garyo-home>   Or deprecate it the usual way. 
17:12:08  <garyo-home>   doc it for now anyway. 
17:12:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:12:41  <stevenknight> 2428:  consensus 3.x  p4 ? 
17:13:15  <garyo-home>   2428 consensus ok w/ me. 
17:13:17  <bdbaddog>     2428 +1 consensus 
17:13:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:13:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2429 
17:14:05  <garyo-home>   I think it's a real bug. 
17:14:12  <bdbaddog>     ditto. 
17:14:17  <stevenknight> agree 
17:14:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The OE is an internal object, but its effects are visible, so it's a bug. 
17:14:34  <garyo-home>   2.x p2? 
17:14:45  <bdbaddog>     2.x p2 +1 
17:14:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     agree 
17:14:57  <garyo-home>   agreed. 
17:14:58  <stevenknight> 2.x p2 
17:15:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     who? 
17:15:22  <stevenknight> i have a prototype of a really different substitution mechanism that looks faster 
17:15:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Sounds like a volunteer to me. 
17:15:37  <garyo-home>   But it may not even be subst related? 
17:15:53  <garyo-home>   steven, go for it. 
17:16:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Bug is because call is applied to Env, not OE. 
17:16:40  <garyo-home>   Put a note in that I'll do it if Steven doesn't get to it. 
17:17:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll add you to the issue. 
17:17:14  <garyo-home>   +1 
17:18:00  <garyo-home>   done? 
17:18:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes, done 
17:18:28  <stevenknight> (sorry, afk for a bit) 
17:18:56  <stevenknight> the prototype would basically replace [OverrideEnvironment](OverrideEnvironment) 
17:19:15  <stevenknight> so there wouldn't be any distinction between "real" and "override" 
17:19:18  <stevenknight> they're just all stackable dicts 
17:19:34  <stevenknight> it takes the technique of string.Template and extends it for our purposes 
17:19:43  <garyo-home>   steven: that sounds great.  I'll help test it :-) 
17:19:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     as will I 
17:19:58  <stevenknight> the problem I'm running into is that subst_list() basically has really dumb and ill-defined semantics 
17:20:20  <garyo-home>   steven: 110% agreement there.  We've been through a few oddities with it. 
17:20:09  <stevenknight> i should write up a discussion for the ML 
17:20:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
17:20:11  <stevenknight> anyway, back to the issues 
17:18:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2430, 2431, consensus 
17:18:18  <garyo-home>   agreed. 
17:18:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2432, 2433, consensus 
17:19:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2434, closed 
17:20:31  <garyo-home>   I'm fine thru 2434. 
17:20:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2441, needs priority 
17:20:54  <garyo-home>   p3? 
17:21:01  <bdbaddog>     +1 p3 
17:21:05  <stevenknight> p3 
17:21:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
17:21:24  <garyo-home>   great 
17:21:39  <stevenknight> 2435:  since I just attached my name to [OverrideEnvironments](OverrideEnvironments)... 
17:22:26  <stevenknight> 2.x p3 stevenknight  
17:22:28  <garyo-home>   agreed, this one's related.  It can get arbitrarily complex, but this proposal is pretty reasonable.  Would it fit with stacked dicts? 
17:22:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The global names are available, and I looked at how hard the implementation would be once (should also work for env.Clone()) and it didn't look that bad. 
17:22:47  *      stevenknight goes to look at the original issue... 
17:23:43  <stevenknight> yes, i think stackable environments takes care of this 
17:23:49  <stevenknight> or most of what people want from it, anyway 
17:23:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     This is newenv = Environment(CPPFLAGS = Append('whatever')) 
17:24:22  <garyo-home>   right; the override env has to append to the original env. 
17:24:47  <garyo-home>   anyway, Steven will look at it, let's move on. 
17:25:00  <stevenknight> i don't think that specific syntax is viable, but the concept is the same 
17:24:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:25:18  <stevenknight> moving on... 
17:25:30  <garyo-home>   2436: I'll take it 
17:25:43  <stevenknight> garyo-home++ 
17:25:48  <bdbaddog>     Gary+1 
17:25:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (Hmmm...  I think my spreadsheet just crashed.) 
17:26:17  <garyo-home>   my gdocs still shows you viewing... 
17:26:28  <bdbaddog>     ditto. 
17:26:46  <stevenknight> 2437:  consensus 2.1 p3 ludwig 
17:26:57  <garyo-home>   agreed 
17:27:16  <stevenknight> 2438:  2.1 p3 who? 
17:27:23  <stevenknight> could kick it back to Jason for the test case 
17:27:31  <stevenknight> but still needs a comitter 
17:27:41  <garyo-home>   I'll commit it and work w/ him to get the testcase. 
17:27:49  <bdbaddog>     +1 gary 
17:28:01  <stevenknight> thnx 
17:28:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2438, look at SQEC to see if it gives you any ideas 
17:29:28  <garyo-home>   2438 wouldn't be needed w/ SQEC I agree, but in the near term... 
17:31:02  <stevenknight> SQEC? 
17:31:25  <garyo-home>   "[SubstQuoteEscapeCache](SubstQuoteEscapeCache)" 
17:31:29  <stevenknight> ah 
17:28:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (Google spreadsheets lost my login, but I'm back...) 
17:28:34  <stevenknight> 2439:  2.1 p3 
17:28:47  <stevenknight> who? 
17:29:47  <garyo-home>   someone want to integrate 2439? 
17:30:03  <bdbaddog>     I'll take it. 
17:30:10  <garyo-home>   excellent 
17:30:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, works for me 
17:30:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2440, 2442, consensus 
17:30:50  <garyo-home>   Greg, before you have to go, want to talk about 1.3? 
17:31:06  <garyo-home>   (agree w/ 2440, 2442) 
17:31:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo-home, I'll leave my session running; I'll read it later 
17:31:59  <garyo-home>   ok, sounds good. 
17:32:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2443 
17:32:17  <garyo-home>   2443's next. 
17:32:39  <garyo-home>   Steven: what about the line I list as suspect? 
17:33:03  <stevenknight> 2443:  sounds exactly right 
17:33:25  <stevenknight> i thought sure we had/have some tests of aliases with actions 
17:33:44  <stevenknight> either i'm hallucinating or those take a different code path 
17:33:53  <bdbaddog>     I"m looking at the path, and suspect maybe he's got a locally modified scons? 
17:34:10  <bdbaddog>     /home/Checkouts/Bazaar/SCons_trunk/... 
17:34:05  <garyo-home>   Well, this is a pretty nice testcase in the ticket. 
17:34:18  <stevenknight> greg confirmed the failure 
17:34:30  <bdbaddog>     ah..true. 
17:34:32  <bdbaddog>     donno. 
17:34:53  <garyo-home>   There's no way that line 699 in can work. 
17:34:54  <bdbaddog>     is this a 1.3 type issue? or 2.x? 
17:35:14  <garyo-home>   Good q.  What's the 1.3 schedule? Frozen? 
17:35:47  *      garyo-home hears nothing... great silence... 
17:35:50  <bdbaddog>     my understanding was. One more checkpoint wait 2 weeks if nothings seriously broken then 1.3 
17:36:04  <bdbaddog>     then charge forward to 2.0 
17:36:19  <stevenknight> uhh.... 
17:36:23  <stevenknight> that line looks fine, actually, 
17:36:27  <garyo-home>   That works for me; if so, then this can get squeezed into 1.3. 
17:36:30  <stevenknight> it's calling the Environment.subst_list() method 
17:36:36  <stevenknight> not Subst.scons_subst_list() 
17:36:45  <stevenknight> Environment.subst_list() does take an executor= keyword argument 
17:36:47  <garyo-home>   Right, but that eventually calls scons_subst_list. 
17:37:11  <garyo-home>   Ah, the env's subst_list should strip it out? 
17:37:19  <stevenknight> right, but it doesn't try to pass executor= to it 
17:37:22  <stevenknight> so far as i can see 
17:37:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Taking too long; defer until next time 
17:37:31  <stevenknight> [GregNoel](GregNoel)++ 
17:37:41  <garyo-home>   hmm, ok. 
17:38:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I propose to stop here and go on to 1.3 discussion. 
17:38:05  <bdbaddog>     put research bill?  
17:38:22  <garyo-home>   ok w/ me! 
17:38:25  <stevenknight> 2443 research bill ok by  me 
17:38:38  <bdbaddog>     o.k. on to 1.3 
17:39:02  <garyo-home>   Bill, are you still OK making the checkpoint? 
17:39:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ARGV, got to go; cul 
17:39:12  <garyo-home>   ok bye 
17:39:21  <stevenknight> later 
17:39:31  <bdbaddog>     Later Greg! 
17:39:37  <garyo-home>   I've done one before, I can help if needed. 
17:39:49  <stevenknight> if it would help, i could open up the system that I use for cutting the releases 
17:39:53  <bdbaddog>     yes. Just taking a bit to get the changes together and coherent. the other parst are easy. 
17:39:55  <stevenknight> it's a VM 
17:40:04  <bdbaddog>     ahh. 
17:40:10  <bdbaddog>     how big's the footprint? 
17:40:24  <bdbaddog>     I can bring you a usb hardrive.. 
17:40:33  <stevenknight> i was going to let you ssh in 
17:40:38  <bdbaddog>     oh. o.k. 
17:40:53  <stevenknight> but the creation of the image is also automated 
17:41:22  <garyo-home>   I have a small VM (ubuntu) that can build a release, w/ doc tools etc. if that helps? 
17:41:47  <bdbaddog>     I'm not too worried about that part. It's just been tough getting a block of time to get the text part together. 
17:42:09  <stevenknight> that's usually been the most time-consuming part for me, too 
17:42:29  <bdbaddog>     I think we should start to enforce/encourage update Changes.txt with each checkin. 
17:42:37  <bdbaddog>     and the release message. 
17:42:50  <bdbaddog>     though svn would be fine too. 
17:43:01  <bdbaddog>     and then pushing the button is easy. 
17:42:35  <garyo-home>   Want to write it as a google doc w/ irc? 
17:42:45  <garyo-home>   +1 on both of those! 
17:43:22  <bdbaddog>     I'll try and get it done tonight. 
17:43:39  <garyo-home>   OK, if you want review just let me know. 
17:44:15  <stevenknight> agree on CHANGES.txt 
17:44:19  <bdbaddog>     sure. I'll send out text to release mail list for review. And then how do we post it to all the correct places. 
17:44:32  <garyo-home>   That, for me, was time consuming. 
17:44:45  <stevenknight> yes 
17:44:46  <bdbaddog>     Changes.txt and release notice. 
17:44:50  <garyo-home>   Tigris, sf, website... 
17:45:15  <stevenknight> first, we should give you appropriate privileges on those sites 
17:45:24  <stevenknight> and then second, there's gotta be a way to automate doing those 
17:45:13  <bdbaddog>     so the changes and release are since 1.2.x or since last checkpoint? 
17:45:36  <stevenknight> last checkpoint 
17:45:53  <garyo-home>   (but the 1.3 changes will be from 1.2) 
17:45:59  <bdbaddog>     yes. 
17:45:57  <stevenknight> originally i started trying to adjust CHANGES.txt so it would be since last release (e.g. 1.2.x) 
17:46:01  <stevenknight> but that got too confusing 
17:46:25  <stevenknight> seemed easier to grok that all of the accumulated checkpoints since the last 1.2.x line in CHANGES.txt 
17:46:31  <stevenknight> were part of 1.3.x 
17:46:26  <garyo-home>   If we have people update it on commit, won't it have to be since last release? 
17:46:30  <bdbaddog>     Could have Changes.release.txt and Changes.Checkpoint.txt or something like that. 
17:47:02  <stevenknight> ?  not following 
17:47:17  <garyo-home>   Maybe on release we could just remove the checkpoint lines, leaving only the changes? 
17:47:21  <bdbaddog>     so 3 files. Changes.txt which is running change list. 
17:47:44  <bdbaddog>     hmm. never mind..  
17:47:50  <bdbaddog>     o.k. I like Gary's idea. 
17:48:02  <stevenknight> could do that 
17:48:02  <bdbaddog>     since the checkpoints are discardable. 
17:48:14  <garyo-home>   right. 
17:48:24  <stevenknight> but I think some people do treat the checkpoints as releases 
17:48:45  <stevenknight> is there actual harm in preserving the info? 
17:48:53  <garyo-home>   it's just visual noise. 
17:49:08  <garyo-home>   Maybe we indent those or something. 
17:49:19  <bdbaddog>     O.k. also, let's checkin the announcment file, which get's wiped clean at each real release? 
17:49:45  <bdbaddog>     And for checkpoints, let just refer people to the changes.txt ? 
17:50:16  <garyo-home>   +1 on checking in the announcement file for sure. 
17:50:33  <stevenknight> dunno, doesn't seem worth extra effort to remove and reorganize 
17:50:42  <stevenknight> +1 to checking in announcement 
17:50:49  <stevenknight> yeah 
17:51:17  <bdbaddog>     O.k. I"ll check in a Blank. 
17:51:30  <garyo-home>   release-announcement.txt?  RELEASE.txt? 
17:51:53  <bdbaddog>     Announcement.txt ? 
17:52:08  <garyo-home>   works for me 
17:52:46  <stevenknight> announcement.txt (your choice capitlization) 
17:53:11  <garyo-home>   So for changes.txt we'll leave the checkpoints in for now (maybe indent or something)? 
17:53:46  <bdbaddog>     Yes. I guess we can just leave what's there now. And when we go 2.0 move Changes.txt to Changes-1.txt 
17:53:53  <bdbaddog>     In 2.0 indent checkpoints? 
17:54:31  <garyo-home>   Sure, we can iron out the details when we get there. 
17:54:49  <stevenknight> yeah 
17:54:51  <garyo-home>   (I'd be OK w/ deleting the older checkpoints too, just keep 1 release back or so) 
17:55:23  <bdbaddog>     Can we breach a 2.0 topic? 
17:55:24  <bdbaddog>     ;) 
17:55:27  <stevenknight> but i personally wouldn't invest a lot of time on it, it doesn't seem like anyone's really complaining 
17:55:38  <bdbaddog>     ok. 
17:55:42  <garyo-home>   agreed. 
17:55:50  <garyo-home>   sure, 2.0? 
17:55:56  <stevenknight> to really clean it up, you not only have to delete the checkpoint lines, but you have to merge the individual contributor sections 
17:56:06  <garyo-home>   (good point) 
17:56:00  <stevenknight> 2.0 
17:56:30  <bdbaddog>     :) My normal python question. Since time has marched on and we drew the line in the sand a while back, can we more to a newer version for 2.0 than python 2.2? 
17:57:25  <garyo-home>   what features would we gain by going to, say, 2.3? 
17:57:51  *      stevenknight will go with the collective wisdom 
17:57:53  <bdbaddog>     2.5 gets us subprocess right? 
17:57:53  <stevenknight> that said 
17:58:23  <stevenknight> 2.3 did seem only marginally better than 2.2 
17:58:27  <stevenknight> 2.4 starts to get significant 
17:58:29  <stevenknight> iirc 
17:58:51  <garyo-home>   We already have a bunch of compat stuff; I think it would have to be a language feature. 
17:58:53  <stevenknight> i don't think modules (e.g. subprocess) are a compelling reason to prefer one over the other 
17:58:59  <stevenknight> because we can handle them in compat 
17:59:18  <stevenknight> agree w/gary, language features are stronger determinants 
17:59:33  <bdbaddog>     2.5 gets' with. 
17:59:41  <garyo-home>   What about unicode? Anything important? 
18:00:08  <stevenknight> i'd have a hard time going with 2.5; google internal standard is still 2.4 
18:00:20  <garyo-home>   Bill: do you think we could really jump all the way to 2.5 though?  We'll lose all the IRIX people for sure, and some older Linuxes too. 
18:00:47  <bdbaddog>     does python 2.5 not build on irix? 
18:01:02  <bdbaddog>     2.4 gets us generators. 
18:01:15  <garyo-home>   Last I knew the latest nekochan build was 2.3. 
18:01:26  <bdbaddog>     do you not build from sources? 
18:02:11  <garyo-home>   I take it back, there's a 2.5.2 there now. 
18:02:38  <garyo-home>   (It's not what *I* do, it's what my *users* do. :-/) 
18:02:50  <bdbaddog>     ahh. users=customers? 
18:02:54  <garyo-home>   yep. 
18:02:59  <bdbaddog>     they build from sources? 
18:03:04  <stevenknight> 2.3 gets generators 
18:03:15  <garyo-home>   of course they won't run scons.  I'm just using them as an example of "typical IRIX users" 
18:03:32  <garyo-home>   generators are very useful. 
18:04:00  <stevenknight> 2.4 has decorators, which are kind of nifty but basically syntactic sugar for something you can code by hand 
18:04:03  <garyo-home>   ... but you can import generators from future in 2.2 (I think) 
18:04:12  <bdbaddog>     I've never been in an environment where I couldn't build a new version of scripting language for use by build system. 
18:04:38  <bdbaddog>     true on decorators, but anything which makes the code easier to read will be a win.. 
18:04:48  <stevenknight> true 
18:04:56  <garyo-home>   One good thing is, once we have Lukas's all-in-one Windows installer, we won't even require python on a windows box. 
18:04:59  <bdbaddog>     I'd be up for saying 2.5, pushing the checkpoitn with it and 1.3 
18:05:06  <bdbaddog>     and if the world freaks out, we backtrack. 
18:05:14  <bdbaddog>     we'lll have some time before 2.0's out. 
18:05:27  <stevenknight> probably 
18:05:50  <stevenknight> i'd have a lot of internal projects thought that would break 
18:06:13  <stevenknight> though 
18:06:16  <garyo-home>   I'd be pretty scared to go to 2.5 
18:06:32  <stevenknight> i can see either 2.3 or 2.4 
18:06:34  <bdbaddog>     steven - due to 2.4 internal to google? 
18:06:41  <stevenknight> yes 
18:06:41  <bdbaddog>     o.k. let's go with 2.4 
18:07:01  <bdbaddog>     If we slip another 6 months or more on 2.0, then revisit. 
18:07:07  <bdbaddog>     and/or google updates to 2.5..  
18:07:09  <bdbaddog>     ;) 
18:07:13  <stevenknight> yes  :-) 
18:07:27  <bdbaddog>     Gary - what'd be the basis of your fear? 
18:07:40  <garyo-home>   from [](, 2.4 was Nov 2004. 
18:07:43  <bdbaddog>     then again I"m the let's break some egg's kind of guy. 
18:07:55  <bdbaddog>     5 years ago almost. 
18:07:55  <stevenknight> how about we poll the ML for objections to 2.4, with 2.3 as the fallback? 
18:07:57  <garyo-home>   My fear? We lose users due to them not being able to upgrade their pythons. 
18:08:10  <garyo-home>   +1 on poll ML (again :-)) 
18:08:12  <bdbaddog>     they'll yell at us, and we can backtrack. 
18:08:39  <bdbaddog>     I think the mailing list hasn't provided any insight, and the only reall proof will be when the tool starts yelling at the users. 
18:08:42  <stevenknight> okay, how about:  release 1.3 first 
18:08:48  <bdbaddog>     :) 
18:08:49  <stevenknight> then float 2.4 on the ML 
18:09:06  <bdbaddog>     well we'd be putting the warning in 1.3 about next version 2.x minimum right? 
18:09:31  <bdbaddog>     that's why I bring it up now. 
18:09:54  <garyo-home>   hmm. 
18:10:13  <stevenknight> ah 
18:10:45  <garyo-home>   even if disablable, that's a little annoying. 
18:10:59  <bdbaddog>     don't we alreayd have that in place for 2.2? 
18:11:11  <garyo-home>   do we? 
18:11:25  <stevenknight> sorry bill, you kicked the ball in your own goal -- i'm back to preferring 2.3 ... :-) 
18:11:41  <bdbaddog>     oh dude.. ur killin me. 
18:12:06  <bdbaddog>     2.3 is 2003. 
18:12:08  <garyo-home>   (my vm is being annoying, or I'd look) 
18:12:11  <bdbaddog>     6 years aog. 
18:12:20  <stevenknight> so we turn the clock forward five years! 
18:12:27  <bdbaddog>     wheel's were square then. 
18:12:37  <stevenknight> that's almost half way! 
18:12:40  <stevenknight> :-) 
18:12:58  <garyo-home>   Steven: what changed your mind 2.4 -> 2.3?  I don't think we'd lose that many users. 
18:13:01  <bdbaddog>     I don't think anyones using 2.3 
18:13:08  <stevenknight> having to put the warning in 1.3 
18:13:23  <garyo-home>   But Bill's saying we already have a warning. 
18:13:27  <bdbaddog>     we can always patch it back in 1.3.1 if we get a lot of negative feedback. 
18:13:52  *      stevenknight breathes deeply 
18:14:01  <stevenknight> oooo... kayyyy.... 
18:14:14  <bdbaddog>     it'd be a 1 line patch and realease. if it's really bad. 
18:14:36  <stevenknight> you want to make the change in this checkpoint?  or only for 1.3 release? 
18:15:04  <bdbaddog>     hmm. 
18:15:08  <garyo-home>   If we get zero feedback from the warning, then I think we're safe.  If we get even one negative, I'll want to revisit. 
18:15:12  <bdbaddog>     if the codes already there then for checkpoint. 
18:15:21  <garyo-home>   bdbaddog: agreed. 
18:15:22  <stevenknight> warning in a checkpoint, or in a release? 
18:15:40  <garyo-home>   both (assuming it's already there now) 
18:15:40  <bdbaddog>     checkpoint if the check is already there, otherwise 1.3 
18:15:59  <stevenknight> although some people treat checkpoints as release, people that are still using 2.3 are unlikely to track checkpoints 
18:16:23  <stevenknight> so silence from the checkpoint warning has strong potential to be a false positive 
18:16:25  <garyo-home>   agreed. iit needs to be there in 1.3 anyway. 
18:16:50  <stevenknight> okay, i can go with it 
18:17:04  <stevenknight> now we just have to twist Greg's arm after he reads this... :-) 
18:17:08  <bdbaddog>     codes already there. 
18:17:12  <bdbaddog>     :) 
18:17:22  <bdbaddog>     eh.. sorry I can't hear you.. zztt zttt static on the line.. 
18:17:26  <bdbaddog>     True. 
18:17:27  <garyo-home>   ... so our existing checkpoint is already warning at 2.2? 
18:17:29  <stevenknight> you sneak, you... :-) 
18:17:34  <bdbaddog>     yes. already there. 
18:17:42  <bdbaddog>     I didn't do it. somebody else did it. 
18:17:52  <stevenknight> oh, wait -- i knew it was warning re: 2.2 
18:17:57  <garyo-home>   Right, I kind of remember that now. 
18:18:00  <stevenknight> i thought you meant you already checked in the 2.4 warning 
18:18:00  <bdbaddog>     yes warning 2.2 
18:18:11  <bdbaddog>     no.. didn't do that.. dang. wish I'd thought of that. 
18:18:13  <garyo-home>   So we just bump that warning level up a notch. 
18:18:20  <bdbaddog>     exactly. 
18:18:21  <stevenknight> right 
18:18:23  <garyo-home>   or two. 
18:18:29  <stevenknight> or .2 
18:18:30  <bdbaddog>     +.2 
18:18:36  <garyo-home>   ok, I'm on board, let's see what happens. 
18:18:49  <bdbaddog>     o.k. I just don't want the project to get stuck in the past like Plone.. 
18:18:58  <bdbaddog>     and be too worried about moving forward. 
18:19:18  <garyo-home>   right, or like not changing Makefile tab syntax because it already had 100 users. 
18:19:45  <garyo-home>   ok, so we can call it a night I think? 
18:19:52  <bdbaddog>     yes. Thanks to all! 
18:19:55  <garyo-home>   Bill, let me know if I can help w/ the checkpoint. 
18:20:10  <bdbaddog>     will do. I'll try to get the text out tonight and packages ready too. 
18:20:17  <garyo-home>   Sounds great. 
18:20:34  <garyo-home>   Thanks all. 
18:20:36  <garyo-home>   cul 
18:20:40  <bdbaddog>     if whomever can give me access to the appropriate uploads I'd need can do that and/or push the packages when done. 
18:20:59  <garyo-home>   Oh yeah, Steven, can you do that? 
18:21:40  <garyo-home>   I'll email you the website login/password, Bill. 
18:22:03  <bdbaddog>     k. thanks.  
18:22:11  <stevenknight> okay, i'll add bill to SF, and...  what else? 
18:22:21  <stevenknight> feel like i'm missing something 
18:22:26  <stevenknight> 
18:22:37  <garyo-home>   I think it's just those two, I'll get him the pair login/password. 
18:22:46  <stevenknight> okay, i'll take sf and 
18:22:48  <stevenknight> many thanks guys 
18:22:52  <garyo-home>   np 
18:23:08  <garyo-home>   'night. 
18:23:16  <bdbaddog>     night! 
18:38:17  *      garyo-home has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.5.2/20090729225027]") 
19:12:38  *      stevenknight has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 
20:31:57  *      [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.