IrcLog2010 01 05

16:49:01  *      Jason_at_Intel (n=[chatzill@12.18.240.224](mailto:chatzill@12.18.240.224)) 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 tigris.org, 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]")