-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 311
IrcLog2009 12 15
William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016
·
2 revisions
10:41:50 * sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/session) has joined #scons
16:46:32 * garyo (n=[garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) has joined #scons
16:55:30 * You are no longer marked as being away
16:55:41 <garyo> hi, anyone here yet?
16:55:55 * [GregNoel](GregNoel) is still setting up
16:57:46 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, that seems to do it. Network is very sluggish tonight. Probably overload on my ISP.
16:58:25 <garyo> Hi Greg. Got a few comments in...
16:58:49 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hi, Gary... Good.
16:59:00 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Steven isn't here yet, so don't stop now.
17:00:23 <sgk_> hello
17:00:49 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Whoa, where did you come from?
17:00:54 <sgk_> using this nick tonight
17:01:07 <sgk_> actually signed on much earlier today, as a way to bring up colloquy on my laptop
17:02:01 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Ah. So we seem to have a quorum, although Gary is off adding some last-minute comments.
17:01:54 <garyo> Hi Steven
17:02:09 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> And there he is...
17:02:10 <sgk_> i'll have a longer shuttle break from now on, probably 1715 - 1725 or so
17:02:19 <sgk_> i'm in a new building and have to hike to the stop
17:02:44 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Should we move the time to a different time to avoid that?
17:03:08 <garyo> My time is limited so let's start in. (Greg: later is better for me usually)
17:03:08 <sgk_> if you guys want to, fine, but i'm okay with it either way
17:03:26 <sgk_> 2470: any word from OP?
17:03:37 <garyo> Yes, he said there's no user-visible error from it.
17:03:43 <garyo> So we should just make it low pri.
17:03:49 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> concur
17:03:51 <sgk_> future p4?
17:03:56 <sgk_> 3.x p4?
17:04:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> the latter
17:04:02 <garyo> I still think it's a bug though. I like 3.x p4.
17:04:11 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:04:15 <sgk_> 2470: 3.x p4 done
17:04:32 <garyo> 2474: someone needs to research it I guess.
17:04:57 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> From the description, I'm convinced it's the directory thing, so I guess I have to look at it.
17:05:12 <garyo> Maybe start by asking OP if it still happens w/ COmmand?
17:05:12 <sgk_> okay, research gregnoel?
17:05:18 <garyo> +1
17:05:23 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> yeah, sigh
17:05:28 <garyo> thanks
17:05:28 <sgk_> thnx
17:05:48 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2482, I think I have a fix
17:05:53 <garyo> excellent!
17:05:57 <sgk_> [GregNoel](GregNoel)++
17:06:28 <sgk_> brb
17:06:46 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I asked the OP to test it, but no word back yet. I can try to work on it this week, but time is being compressed.
17:07:44 <garyo> you can say that again.
17:08:02 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> make it research [GregNoel](GregNoel) and I'll try to get to it before 1.3 (the test will be nasty)
17:08:09 <sgk_> back
17:08:38 <garyo> sounds like 2482 is in progress anyway so no action needed from us
17:08:01 <garyo> 2490: Greg, did you see if update has tests? I agree w/ your priorities in either case. (I'd say p3, C# is pretty popular)
17:08:50 <sgk_> haven't looked at 2490 yet, i'll do so
17:09:17 <garyo> ok, steven research, then 2.1/2.x p3 (depending on whether it has tests)?
17:09:18 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> er, I wrote the OP and he added a note with what the changes were
17:09:42 <sgk_> need to put my name on it -- doing so right now
17:09:46 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> no tests, but he says he can write some when his vacation starts
17:09:55 <garyo> ah, he says he'll put some tests together. Great!
17:10:22 <sgk_> wait, looks like my name might have been put on 2491 by mistake?
17:10:46 <sgk_> no, 2491 is correct, i just need to add 2490
17:10:47 <sgk_> don't mind me
17:11:19 <garyo> yup, 2491's yours too
17:11:55 <garyo> so are we done w/ 2490?
17:11:59 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> did you set the milestone and priority on 2490?
17:12:13 <sgk_> yes, research SK p3
17:12:16 <sgk_> just setting now
17:12:26 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> cool, tks, so 2497
17:13:19 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I don't see what he's expecting. He's trying to bind to a static library as if it were dynamic. Doesn't work.
17:13:33 <garyo> I think there's a Qt way of building a program from a lib, but this seems low priority to fix to me. Workaround is to add a dummy source.
17:13:48 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I agree.
17:13:57 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> invalid or wontfix?
17:14:12 <sgk_> 3.x p4?
17:14:22 <garyo> wontfix; user could consider it a bug but we won't fix it.
17:14:29 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:14:37 <sgk_> okay
17:14:55 <garyo> 2498
17:15:04 <sgk_> research SK p... 3?
17:15:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> yeah
17:15:38 <garyo> ok
17:15:41 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:16:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2500 fixed?
17:16:13 <sgk_> haven't looked, sorry
17:16:17 <sgk_> putting my name on this, too
17:16:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> milestone and priority?
17:16:28 <sgk_> fortunately, i'm almost done with the timing stuff
17:16:38 <sgk_> so i'll prioritize my time after that to clear these
17:16:57 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> so 1.3 p?
17:17:07 <sgk_> research p2, then 2.1 p2 if it's not already fixed?
17:17:18 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> works
17:17:20 <garyo> ok
17:17:51 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2502 who?
17:17:49 <garyo> 2502: I can take that one
17:17:56 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:18:35 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2503
17:18:29 <garyo> 2503: batch-compilation thing
17:19:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> This is usually reordered implicit dependencies
17:19:02 <garyo> Steven: is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?
17:19:09 <sgk_> my bus is leaving the stop two before mine, gotta go, back in ~5-10
17:19:13 * sgk_ has quit ()
17:20:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> for the signature? yeah, it could be bad if the list of sources changes.
17:19:42 <garyo> I wish Bill were here, I was hoping he'd have time to put out the checkpoint.
17:20:05 <garyo> I absolutely don't have time to do it :-(
17:20:42 <garyo> With batch compilation (cl.exe a.c b.c c.c ...) the list changes a lot.
17:21:04 <garyo> and it shouldn't recompile everything if only one source changes; it's because the cmd line is part of the sig.
17:21:35 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Er, wait... Yeah, I was thinking of how TNG handles it. I don't know if it would be a problem currently.
17:22:19 <garyo> I think in this case you explicitly DON'T want the list of sources to be part of the sig of each object.
17:23:19 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Probably not, but I should make a note for TNG that this will take some extra specification.
17:22:45 <garyo> (he fixes that, but then notes that it still pulls all of them from cache, but that's much lower priority imho)
17:23:53 <garyo> I don't use the batch stuff; should probably try it.
17:24:00 <garyo> dogfooding & all that.
17:24:30 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Neither do I... Or precompiled headers... My projects are all only a few files... Somebody here should use it regularly.
17:25:08 <garyo> I can't do precompiled headers because all my stuff is very cross-platform, and a typical precompiled-header organization is pretty different from what you want without them.
17:25:41 <garyo> But batch I could use. Just need time...
17:26:59 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> "Ask me for anything except time."
17:27:46 <garyo> :-/
17:26:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> for 2504, it looks like there's a consensus on anytime +Easy, probably p4. I'll go with that.
17:27:53 <garyo> agree w/ 2504.
17:28:14 <garyo> Looks like Steven's back...
17:28:22 * sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/x-ofvjygvagdzcapee) has joined #scons
17:28:29 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2505, no idea. And Steven is back.
17:28:29 <garyo> Hi again
17:28:29 <sgk_> back
17:29:01 <garyo> So for 2503, the batch one, shouldn't we just put $( )$ around the $SOURCES list in a batch compile?
17:29:33 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Pending question for Steven about 2503, "is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?"
17:29:35 <garyo> ... so the sig of each obj doesn't contain the names of all the other files that were compiled with it?
17:30:19 * sgk<ins> (n=[sgk@67.218.107.243](mailto:sgk@67.218.107.243)) has joined #scons
17:30:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Back again?
17:30:45 <garyo> He's adding underscores :-)
17:30:53 <sgk</ins>> ...and that takes time!
17:30:58 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I suppose it's one way to score...
17:31:09 <sgk<ins>> it reconnected to the wrong wifi while we were at the stop
17:31:22 <garyo> got it.
17:30:34 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Pending question for Steven about 2503, "is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?"
17:31:29 <garyo> So for 2503, the batch one, shouldn't we just put $( )$ around the $SOURCES list in a batch compile?
17:31:35 <garyo> ... so the sig of each obj doesn't contain the names of all the other files that were compiled with it?
17:31:50 <sgk</ins>> off hand $( $) sounds reasonable, but i haven't looked at the bug in detail
17:32:14 <garyo> can you research it since batch was yours?
17:32:19 <sgk<ins>> yeah
17:32:30 <garyo> ok, thx
17:32:35 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> If you can't fix it in a day, say, make it 2.1 p3?
17:32:52 * sgk_ has quit (Nick collision from services.)
17:33:01 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Bye, Steven
17:32:58 * sgk</ins> is now known as sgk_
17:33:05 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hi, Steven
17:33:18 <sgk_> sorry, just removing underscores
17:33:23 <sgk_> yes, i'll update right now
17:33:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, thanks
17:33:52 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2504, resolved
17:34:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> er, 2504, anytime p4 +Easy
17:33:59 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2505, no idea
17:34:28 <garyo> 2505: nor me really, someone needs to read the doc.
17:34:51 <garyo> I think we should just defer it for now. :-(
17:35:00 <sgk_> 2505: i thought that's what we were talking about for 2503
17:35:03 <sgk_> just put my name on it
17:35:05 <sgk_> so give it to me
17:35:23 <garyo> ok!
17:35:30 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ++
17:35:35 <garyo> also 2503 to you, right?
17:35:36 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> research?
17:36:14 <garyo> yes
17:36:19 <sgk_> same disposition as 2503, research SK, then 2.1 p3 if fix isn't quick
17:36:25 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:36:41 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2506
17:37:04 <sgk_> i'd be okay with WONTFIX
17:37:15 <garyo> I think we should just let Bill fix it since he found it.
17:37:19 <sgk_> and if bdbaddog wants it bad enough he can fix it himself...
17:37:20 <sgk_> agreed
17:37:23 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> either works for me
17:37:38 <garyo> wontfix is a little dangerous though since it's not even a funny char, just a dirname with three octal chars.
17:37:52 <sgk_> oh
17:37:59 <sgk_> okay, then let's give it to bdbaddog
17:38:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> then 2506 Bill 2.x p3?
17:38:02 <sgk_> 2.x p3
17:38:04 <garyo> +1
17:38:10 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:38:11 <sgk_> he can reprioritize if he wants, since it's his
17:38:38 <sgk_> 2508: change to anytime p4
17:38:51 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> But not +Easy, so who?
17:38:56 <garyo> 2507?
17:39:01 <sgk_> do we need to assign anytimes?
17:39:06 <sgk_> oh, sorry
17:39:18 <garyo> how about future?
17:39:18 <sgk_> skipped down too far
17:39:20 <sgk_> 2507
17:39:34 <garyo> who's our fortran person these days?
17:39:46 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Do we have one?
17:39:49 <garyo> (silence fills the room)
17:39:58 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> David, maybe?
17:40:00 <sgk_> cricket... cricket... critcket...
17:40:15 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> (more silence)
17:40:14 <sgk_> david, if he'll take it
17:40:27 <garyo> I think you're right, David may know Fortran.
17:40:26 <sgk_> assign it to him and let him give it back?
17:40:33 <garyo> good w/ me
17:40:34 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, I'll contact him.
17:40:34 <sgk_> :-)
17:40:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:40:42 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Oops, milestone and priority?
17:40:56 <garyo> 2.x p4
17:41:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> works for me
17:41:04 <sgk_> done
17:41:19 <sgk_> now 2508, anytime p4
17:41:25 <sgk_> do we need to assign an anytime?
17:41:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Yes, if it's not +Easy
17:41:55 <garyo> how about if it's a p4? Maybe those could be left unassigned too?
17:42:09 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> The +Easy is stuff we hope the community will pick up for us
17:42:29 <garyo> true
17:42:36 <sgk_> okay, then me
17:42:42 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:42:51 <garyo> or maybe we just say wontfix?
17:43:01 <sgk_> ooh, wontfix isn't a bad idea
17:43:21 <sgk_> yeah, wontfix
17:44:02 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2508, wontfix is OK
17:43:55 <sgk_> 2509: garyo, back to OP
17:43:59 <sgk_> done
17:44:08 <garyo> sk: you mean for 2508, right?
17:44:17 <garyo> I'd agree w/ that.
17:44:33 <sgk_> yes, 2508: wontfix, invite re-open and a patch if it's important
17:43:09 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2509, VS
17:43:35 <garyo> 2509: give it to me, I'll ask him to retest w/ trunk.
17:43:42 <sgk_> with a note that a patch would be accepted if someone wants to make it all work on windows
17:44:38 <sgk_> 2509: garyo, note back to OP
17:44:43 <garyo> yes
17:44:43 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:45:08 <garyo> 2510: agree w/ Steven
17:45:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ditto
17:45:13 <sgk_> 2510 and 2511: 2.x p3 rob
17:45:16 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:45:19 <garyo> great
17:45:51 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2512
17:45:51 <sgk_> 2512: 2.x p2 since a 2.1 volunteer seems unlikely
17:46:01 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I have to agree
17:46:17 <sgk_> do we need an assignee?
17:46:20 <garyo> sure seems like a bug, 2.x p2 is OK. I could take it then.
17:46:34 <sgk_> thnx
17:46:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done, thanks
17:46:44 <garyo> (It'll change current behavior of course.)
17:47:01 <sgk_> understood re: changed behavior
17:46:42 <sgk_> 2513: 2.x p3 rob
17:47:04 <sgk_> 2514: 2.x p3 rob
17:47:09 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done and done
17:47:09 <sgk_> go rob!
17:47:18 <garyo> agreed
17:47:32 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> (minimum goal...)
17:47:48 <sgk_> yeah, i'm still 30 minutes away from stop
17:48:05 <sgk_> anything else to discuss or should we plung on?
17:48:20 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Gary wants to discuss 1.3 release
17:48:35 <sgk_> k
17:48:46 <garyo> I do; mostly I wanted to see if Bill has time to put out the checkpoint. But he's not here.
17:49:01 <garyo> I don't have time to do it, but it needs doing.
17:49:19 <garyo> How about if I contact him offline and see what he's up to?
17:49:27 <sgk_> garyo: sounds good
17:49:36 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> garyo, works for me
17:49:37 <sgk_> if he can't get at it, let me know and I'll see if i can
17:49:45 <sgk_> if it's really ready to go it shouldn't be too bad
17:49:52 <garyo> ok, thanks for that. I'll let you know.
17:50:17 <garyo> Need to write up the changes but it's basically ready.
17:50:24 <sgk_> okay re: release
17:47:56 <garyo> Aha, 2515 has good information!
17:48:11 <garyo> I can use that to improve the 64-bit detection. Give it to me.
17:48:19 <garyo> 1.x p3.
17:48:31 <sgk_> 2515: 1.x p3 garyo
17:48:32 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2515, done
17:49:14 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2516, invalid
17:49:22 <sgk_> 2516 invalid
17:49:32 <garyo> 2516: agreed.
17:50:15 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2517, puzzling
17:50:32 <sgk_> 2517: feels like a defer thing to me
17:50:40 <sgk_> unless we have a java expert ready to go
17:50:52 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, defer
17:51:09 <garyo> agree w/ defer.
17:50:32 <garyo> sgk_: so do you have a Nexus One????
17:50:42 <sgk_> garyo: yes
17:51:27 <garyo> I want one (Nexus One).
17:51:58 <sgk_> i'm digging it
17:52:14 <sgk_> big upgrade for me, i was using the G1 they gave us last year
17:52:41 <garyo> I have a G1 w/ cyanogen, not too bad. But I want the big screen, snapdragon cpu.
17:52:47 <garyo> Do you miss the keyboard?
17:52:59 <sgk_> only a little, the touch screen keyboard is pretty good
17:53:27 <sgk_> i never did too much text though, mainly the occasional search
17:53:29 <garyo> Cool.
17:53:34 <sgk_> not much email
17:53:43 <garyo> I'm a big mobile emailer.
17:53:50 <garyo> G1 keyboard++
17:54:04 <sgk_> yeah, my wife got a droid and the keyboard is really disappointing
17:51:25 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> then 2518 also defer?
17:52:02 <garyo> 2518: should we have issues track SEPs, or just close the issue and refer to the SEP?
17:53:29 <garyo> As for 2518, I'd like to close issues that are SEPs, and point them to the SEP. Otherwise we get commentary in two places.
17:54:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2518, I'd prefer to have one issue to track a SEP, and mark the others as dups.
17:54:25 <sgk_> agree w/greg re: an issue to track SEP progress
17:54:39 <sgk_> either make a SEP keyword, or an SEP subcomponent
17:54:44 <garyo> OK, as long as we link both ways.
17:54:53 <garyo> SEP <--> issue
17:55:02 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I wrote Cem to see if he'll open an issue; if not, I'll do it.
17:55:16 <garyo> thanks, sounds good.
17:55:35 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> sgk_, good idea; probably a keyword, but I'll think on it and propose something.
17:56:33 <sgk_> okay, so 2518: close w/bi-directional reference to SEP
17:56:44 <garyo> +
17:56:50 <sgk_> 2519: 1.3 p1 bill
17:56:54 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2519, 1.3 p1 Bill
17:57:01 <garyo> and 2519 is 1.3 p1 bill? (Why is this p1?)
17:57:17 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> because it's really trivial?
17:57:18 <sgk_> p2? do i hear p2?
17:57:33 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> either is fine with me
17:57:34 <garyo> I'd prefer that at this point.
17:57:35 <sgk_> i'd go with p2 just to preserve p1 for really burn-down-the-house things
17:57:45 <garyo> especially for 1.3 bugs.
17:57:45 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> works, done
17:58:15 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> (nominal goal)
17:57:55 <sgk_> 2520: 2.1 p2 garyo?
17:58:13 <garyo> sure, looks like it should be mine
17:57:58 <sgk_> thnx
17:58:36 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ok, done
17:59:11 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Not enough comments; defer?
17:59:27 <sgk_> defer
17:59:29 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> that was 2521
17:59:47 <sgk_> right
17:59:50 <garyo> I haven't looked this far yet
17:59:52 <garyo> sorry
17:59:56 <sgk_> np
18:00:12 <sgk_> looking ahead for consensus...
18:00:16 <sgk_> 2524 is on obvious dup
18:00:38 <sgk_> defer the rest?
18:01:02 <garyo> I think so.
18:01:05 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK with me
18:01:10 <sgk_> cool
18:01:15 <sgk_> good work tonight
18:01:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Yes, and there should be fewer than 20 next time (assuming it's two weeks)
18:01:57 <sgk_> that's put us in the week between christmas and new years
18:02:06 <sgk_> okay by me, but are you two available?
18:02:05 <garyo> I'll be around.
18:02:09 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> so will I
18:02:14 <sgk_> let's go for it then
18:02:26 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> agreed
18:02:28 <garyo> good.
18:02:45 <garyo> see you around then... and have a great Christmas!
18:03:05 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> right, you two too (to?)
18:03:13 <sgk_> and both of you as well
18:03:22 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> g'night
18:03:28 * garyo (n=[garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) has left #scons
18:03:31 <sgk_> [GregNoel](GregNoel): thanks to your team for the job they did on Dallas... :-)
18:03:58 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Still worrysome; Denver could catch up, as we did last year.
18:03:35 <sgk_> later
18:04:18 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> But we'll keep trying.
18:04:20 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> cul
18:04:24 <sgk_> l8r
18:04:33 * You have been marked as being away
18:04:34 * sgk_ (n=[sgk@67.218.107.243](mailto:sgk@67.218.107.243)) has left #scons