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 

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.