IrcLog2010 01 05

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
16:49:01  *      Jason_at_Intel (n=[chatzill@](mailto:chatzill@ has joined #scons 
16:56:31  *      You are no longer marked as being away 
16:56:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, you with us for the bug party? 
16:58:14  <loonycyborg>  [GregNoel](GregNoel): What can I add to it? Besides you always have them when I should be sleeping :P 
16:59:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Sleep?  What's that? 
17:00:23  <sgk>  that's that thing other people do where they close their eyes and don't move for long periods of time 
17:00:27  <sgk>  or so i've heard 
17:00:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     And the answer to your question is that you have a better perspective on what the users are seeing than any of us here. 
17:01:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     s/seeing/wanting, needing, desiring, .../ 
17:01:50  <sgk>  no sign of bdbaddog and garyo was sounding pretty iffy...  :-( 
17:02:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Gary said he'd likely be late, so I'm not panicking yet.  yet. 
17:06:00  <Jason_at_Intel>       are we waiting for Steve? 
17:07:01  <sgk>  i'm here 
17:07:13  <Jason_at_Intel>       right :-) 
17:07:14  <sgk>  just under a different (officially registered) nick 
17:10:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, can you open the "current issues" spreadsheet?  There's a link from the [BugParty](BugParty) wiki page. 
17:11:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     And also the current issuezilla page; there's also a link from the [BugParty](BugParty) page.  I keep them in different tabs in my browser so I can flip back and forth readily. 
17:13:41  <loonycyborg>  [GregNoel](GregNoel): I've opened them. 
17:13:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Steven, should we start?  It looks like there's close to consensus on the first few; that will give Gary a chance to arrive. 
17:14:12  <sgk>  sounds good, let's go 
17:14:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, the easiest way to follow in issuezilla is to click on the "long format" button 
17:14:38  <sgk>  2071:  consensus 2.0 p0 sk 
17:14:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:16:10  <sgk>  question about the license (to see if anyone has an opinion) 
17:16:20  <Jason_at_Intel>       what does this mean? 
17:16:37  <Jason_at_Intel>       is this going to cause a problem for me and Parts add on for Scons? 
17:16:40  <sgk>  sorry, mean release forms for code 
17:17:28  <Jason_at_Intel>       as in legal forms? 
17:17:46  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  to avoid possible legal hassles, we should really have some paper showing it's legal to take code 
17:18:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     "contributed code" 
17:18:01  <sgk>  contributed code 
17:18:03  <sgk>  right 
17:18:20  <sgk>  we actually have a draft of an assignment that I used for a bit years ago 
17:18:28  <sgk>  something I scraped together from other examples 
17:18:53  <sgk>  probably full of IANAL holes 
17:18:23  <Jason_at_Intel>       As I understand it legally you just need a .lic file shipped with the license 
17:18:27  <Jason_at_Intel>       like i have in Parts 
17:19:01  <Jason_at_Intel>       Or so I was told by Intel Lawyers 
17:19:19  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  that's fine for you distributing Parts 
17:19:32  <sgk>  the question is if the SCons Foundation were to incorporate Parts into SCons 
17:19:44  <sgk>  if we don't have paper from you and Intel saying it's okay 
17:20:04  <sgk>  then legally we'd be open to getting sued for improperly redistributing your IP 
17:20:03  <Jason_at_Intel>       I see 
17:20:17  <Jason_at_Intel>       course the point of Parts it to be added to SCons 
17:20:41  <Jason_at_Intel>       right... you have that OK 
17:20:55  <Jason_at_Intel>       I thought gave you an e-mail orginally with all that 
17:21:17  <sgk>  believe so, but we haven't been regular about getting this from contributors 
17:21:33  <Jason_at_Intel>       Everything in Parts is for Scons to take and use as they like 
17:21:34  <sgk>  current agreement basically says you have to give code to scons 
17:21:39  <sgk>  which makes some corporate lawyers nervous 
17:21:59  <Jason_at_Intel>       sure..  I understand 
17:22:19  <sgk>  our lawyer (last I talked) said since we're MIT [license] we could get by with just having contributors license their code to SCons under the same MIT terms we use 
17:22:29  <sgk>  so contributors still retain ownership 
17:22:20  <Jason_at_Intel>       if "we" needed to clarify anything here let me know 
17:22:46  <Jason_at_Intel>       sort of why we released under MIT 
17:22:57  <Jason_at_Intel>       normally Intel would have wanted a BSD 
17:23:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     to proceed, 2509, 1.3 p1 Gary +doc 
17:23:22  <sgk>  2509:  done 
17:23:25  <Jason_at_Intel>       K 
17:23:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2518 
17:23:54  <sgk>  you okay with the other consensus? 
17:23:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll make it a dup of 2536 
17:25:11  <sgk>  2518: done 
17:25:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2521 
17:25:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll go with the flow 
17:25:43  <sgk>  2521:  ditto, research p2 bdbaddog 
17:25:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:25:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2522 
17:26:08  <sgk>  2.x p4 okay w/you? 
17:26:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Already too much in 2.x; 3.x? 
17:26:42  <sgk>  fine with me 
17:26:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     3.x p3? 
17:27:00  <sgk>  +1 
17:27:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:27:24  <sgk>  2523:  2.x p3 +symlink +sconf_revamp 
17:27:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2523 2.x p3 
17:27:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     er, sure, we agree 
17:28:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2531, this came up in the mailing list today 
17:28:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll go with the flow; future is OK. 
17:27:56  <Jason_at_Intel>       is the auto config going to get redone in 2.x 
17:28:32  <Jason_at_Intel>       or better yet are the symlink nodes going to be handed by SCons? 
17:29:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Already in train. 
17:28:56  <Jason_at_Intel>       moving on 
17:29:08  <Jason_at_Intel>       you would need to redo the taskmaster 
17:29:33  <Jason_at_Intel>       and the task queue 
17:29:46  <sgk>  2531:  future p2 
17:29:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:29:54  <Jason_at_Intel>       agreed 
17:30:26  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  all of it needs attention 
17:30:36  <sgk>  I'm hoping to get guidance from you all on what's top priority for my time 
17:30:44  <sgk>  instead of ending up all over the map like I usually do... 
17:30:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2532 
17:30:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Steven, you want it? 
17:30:56  <sgk>  2532:  2.x p2 sk 
17:31:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I don't like it that far out, but I'm willing to try. 
17:31:17  <sgk>  you'd like it sooner than 2.x? 
17:31:28  <Jason_at_Intel>       is this a regression? (2532) 
17:31:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, I don't like something with your name on it that far out, for precisely the reasons you just said. 
17:31:57  <sgk>  right 
17:32:11  *      sgk goes to re-read the issue... 
17:32:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Maybe assign it to Gary for research and recommendations. 
17:34:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Steven, we lose you? 
17:34:26  <sgk>  no, was off taking a look at the code 
17:34:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Maybe assign it to Gary for research and recommendations. 
17:35:07  <Jason_at_Intel>       so 2532.. research it? 
17:35:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Gary for research and recommendations? 
17:35:46  <sgk>  no, give it to me, i think I just figured out a pretty simple fix 
17:35:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, done 
17:36:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     what milestone and priority? 
17:36:11  <sgk>  we should handle that like we do the other allowable exceptions in substitution 
17:36:15  <sgk>  2.1 p2 
17:36:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:36:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2533, should be 2.1 p3 garyo 
17:36:49  <Jason_at_Intel>       2533... this seem to be a bug in how the win32 installer is made... ... user has to elevate it to run it 
17:37:10  <Jason_at_Intel>       or the installer has to be made to get elevation by the system 
17:37:32  <sgk>  2.1 p3 garyo 
17:37:32  <sgk>  done 
17:37:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:38:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2534 
17:38:30  <sgk>  i'm okay with doc+test p3 
17:38:43  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     milestone? 
17:39:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     And is node_class=None the right solution? 
17:40:09  <sgk>  looking... 
17:41:44  <sgk>  sheesh, who designed this API? 
17:42:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Er, that would be you? 
17:42:11  <sgk>  yep... :-) 
17:42:34  <Jason_at_Intel>       SEP for cleaned on API are needed 
17:42:39  <Jason_at_Intel>       ;-) 
17:42:46  <loonycyborg>  Scanner api indeed seems kinda weird. 
17:42:54  <sgk>  I'm confused because the default is actually Entry, not File 
17:43:04  <sgk>  which normally means that returning a Dir should be okay 
17:43:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yeah, I agree...  So why's it fail? 
17:43:49  <sgk>  +1 re: a SEP to clean up APIs 
17:44:07  <sgk>  ah 
17:44:19  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Who would write the SEP?  Or should there be more than one? 
17:44:28  <sgk>  more than one 
17:44:47  <sgk>  one per area of cleanup, probably 
17:45:11  <sgk>  okay, i'm taking it back, i think 2534 needs research 
17:45:28  <loonycyborg>  I'd prefer if a scanner always was a function taking node, returning list of nodes. 
17:46:11  <sgk>  loonycyborg:  that would be a step in a more sane direction, but it's a little more complicated 
17:46:28  <sgk>  because a scanner is really conceptually attached to an edge in a DAG, not a node 
17:46:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ... and there are some other considerations 
17:47:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     but an API that ran a function with an upstream node would go a long way toward solving a number of problems. 
17:47:18  <sgk>  re: 2534, need to figure out where the File lookup is coming from 
17:47:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, who?  not you? 
17:48:51  <sgk>  me... not me... me... not me... 
17:49:12  <sgk>  i dunno 
17:47:50  <loonycyborg>  Probably api is like that due to taking specifics of scanning c/c++ files in account, e.g. search path etc. 
17:48:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     API would need an Environment, but that's a secondary consideration. 
17:48:24  <loonycyborg>  But you could just make a canned scanner for that case.. 
17:49:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, caching becomes a problem. 
17:49:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, decision, or bypass? 
17:49:42  <Jason_at_Intel>       research seem to be best 
17:49:44  <sgk>  let's defer until next week 
17:49:55  <sgk>  it'd be sane to have someone else research 
17:49:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:50:10  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2535 
17:50:26  <Jason_at_Intel>       I have this working in Parts 
17:50:32  <Jason_at_Intel>       you can take my code for this 
17:50:44  <sgk>  2535:  1.3 p1 garyo 
17:50:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2535, I don't have a clue 
17:50:56  <Jason_at_Intel>       but gary is best guy for this 
17:51:08  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  could you update the issue with that info re: code in parts, so he'll see it when he looks? 
17:51:25  <Jason_at_Intel>       sure... 
17:51:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll resist 1.3 
17:51:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     We should be cutting it next week, unless there's a regression in the checkpoint. 
17:52:33  <sgk>  re: 1.3, is that on a separate branch or is it on trunk still? 
17:53:00  *      sgk is worried that he's potentially messing up 1.3 with recent checkins... 
17:53:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I think you did a rebase recently; that should be the candidate 
17:53:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     If it's not, it should be twiddled so that it is 
17:54:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Were you the one to release the checkpoint?  If so, which branch did you use? 
17:55:05  <sgk>  bdbaddog did 
17:55:13  <sgk>  that's right, we have the checkpoint branch for that... duh 
17:55:48  <sgk>  so 2.1 p1 garyo? 
17:55:51  <sgk>  for 2535? 
17:56:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     p1 or p2?  I don't think it's p1-urgent 
17:57:09  <sgk>  good point, p2 
17:57:18  <sgk>  can be escalated if it starts burning anyone 
17:57:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:58:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Should we go on to your research issues? 
17:58:24  <Jason_at_Intel>       added notes of basic code 
17:58:32  <sgk>  sure, let's just hit obvious ones for now (consensus, etc.) 
17:58:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I think we should settle the lawyer issues; don't know about the rest 
17:58:49  <sgk>  2130:  2.0 p0 sk 
17:59:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1910, no consensus; bypass 
17:59:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2130, yes 
17:59:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (I'll really make them p1) 
17:59:42  <sgk>  crap, i thought I went through these 
17:59:51  <sgk>  obviously I didn't 
17:59:48  <Jason_at_Intel>       ideally this is just asking for a license to be added in the documentation 
18:00:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     765, 2.x p2 garyo 
18:00:05  <sgk>  yeah, just need to stamp it with the appropriate creative commons license 
18:00:27  <sgk>  765 done 
18:00:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2361 bypass 
18:00:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     780 bypass 
18:01:04  <Jason_at_Intel>       I need to do a SEP for packaging 
18:01:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     914, bypass reluctantly 
18:01:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1187 bypass 
18:01:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1745 bypass 
18:02:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1883 bypass (dup?) 
18:04:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     None of the rest have enough comments... 
18:05:10  <sgk>  yep, sorry about that 
18:02:03  <sgk>  914:  probably wontfix at this point 
18:02:19  <sgk>  it's been superceded by the stuff I copped from Chromium 
18:02:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     your choice 
18:03:17  <sgk>  re: reluctantly:  is there specific functionality you had in mind that you wanted from 914? 
18:04:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, but the XML output in a standardized format is a good idea. 
18:04:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I don't know what you added from Chromium 
18:04:48  <sgk>  hmm, what if we just mark it future so it doesn't fall off the radar screen? 
18:04:51  <sgk>  that's a little lame, but... 
18:05:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Future is on the radar screen? 
18:05:19  <sgk>  fair point 
18:05:31  <sgk>  it's less off the radar screen than WONTFIX... 
18:05:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     bypass until next time 
18:05:34  <Jason_at_Intel>       I can't seem to edit the file so i have been unable to add comments 
18:05:58  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  oh, I meant to update the issue at, not in the spreadsheet 
18:06:03  <sgk>  if that's what you were trying to do 
18:06:19  <sgk>  the spreadsheet is just to try to streamline the triage process in these meetings 
18:06:34  <sgk>  it's not for long-term tracking of info on specific bugs 
18:06:43  <Jason_at_Intel>       No i added comment on the bug at tigris 
18:07:01  <sgk>  okay, thanks 
18:08:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     decision on 914? 
18:09:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (we've run over and I don't know if there's anything to discuss about 1.3) 
18:10:02  <Jason_at_Intel>       Steve? 
18:11:04  <sgk>  914:  defer to next time 
18:11:11  <sgk>  along with rest of research 
18:10:21  <Jason_at_Intel>       2347 will be fixed by taskmaster NG? 
18:10:35  <Jason_at_Intel>       greg? 
18:12:04  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) brb 
18:14:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     back; 2347 not related to taskmaster; related to how symlinks should work: 'value' of symlink is string reference, but has to be worked out so read and write work. 
18:15:49  <Jason_at_Intel>       Greg.. thanks! 
18:35:57  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) just had his wife suggest that it would be a good thing to come to dinner... 
18:36:21  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  thanks, say hello to your wife 
18:36:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     wilco, cul 
18:36:49  *      You have been marked as being away 
18:37:00  <Jason_at_Intel>       later greg! 
18:36:33  <sgk>  i should go, too -- i'm still at work and have to buy a printer on the way home 
18:37:53  <Jason_at_Intel>       well guess you got to go.. I should go help take care of my kids 
18:45:30  <sgk>  gotta get going, catch you guys later 
18:45:44  <Jason_at_Intel>       ok later! 
18:45:51  *      sgk (n=sgk@nat/google/x-rfygfhizlqsajbfq) has left #scons 
18:46:03  <Jason_at_Intel>       I got to go as well 
18:46:07  <Jason_at_Intel>       later 
18:46:13  *      Jason_at_Intel has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]") 

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.