IrcLog2010 02 02

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
14:17:31  *      techtonik (~chatzilla@2607:f298:2:107:230:48ff:fecb:9f0b) has joined #scons 
16:51:27  *      garyo (~[]( has joined #scons 
16:59:09  <garyo>        hi folks 
17:00:19  *      Jason_at_Intel (~[chatzilla@](mailto:chatzilla@ has joined #scons 
17:00:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, guys... 
17:00:31  <Jason_at_Intel>       hello 
17:01:04  *      sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-efogesqhruhwxpwv) has joined #scons 
17:01:25  <Jason_at_Intel>       Hello Steve! 
17:01:31  <sgk>  hey Jason_at_intel 
17:01:33  <sgk>  hi [GregNoel](GregNoel) 
17:01:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     hi 
17:01:38  <sgk>  who else is here? 
17:01:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo 
17:05:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Are we ready?  1910 is first. 
17:07:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I agree with Gary's comment; should we make that the consensus? 
17:06:48  <garyo>        Looks like 1910 is Steven's if he has a patch to start on it with 
17:07:53  <sgk>  yeah, i consider it a definite bug 
17:08:16  <sgk>  this is one of a bunch of issues where i have half-finished stabs at fixes 
17:08:21  <sgk>  or at least additional investigation 
17:08:26  <sgk>  sitting in various working directories 
17:08:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I like the approach of creating a test and then implementing to suit...  Good practice. 
17:08:40  <sgk>  i have a test case, and most of a fix, but additional tests break 
17:08:38  <garyo>        ok, you rough it out & put the code in the ticket? 
17:08:54  <sgk>  right, when i hand these back 
17:08:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Put that in the issue and assign to Gary? 
17:09:24  <sgk>  sure 
17:09:17  <garyo>        sure, as long as it's 2.x.  I won't get to it in the next few weeks. 
17:09:07  <sgk>  i should at least pack up my in-progress work and attach a patch 
17:09:19  <sgk>  if i haven't time to polish it off myself 
17:09:39  <sgk>  and maybe i get to it sooner, but at least the progress gets recorded to help whoever gets there first 
17:09:46  <garyo>        good plan. 
17:09:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, I'll leave it to sgk to assign, as soon as he's added the info 
17:09:58  <sgk>  will do 
17:09:58  <sgk>  done 
17:10:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:10:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2361 consensus 
17:10:15  <sgk>  done 
17:10:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     780 
17:10:42  <garyo>        Could be a warning flag, on by default, but tests turn it off? 
17:10:43  <sgk>  similar to 1910, i'll upload a partial-fix patch and document what tests fail 
17:10:52  <sgk>  probably should fix the unit tests 
17:11:01  <sgk>   but some of the end-to-end tests fail, too, in ways that I haven't triaged 
17:10:58  <garyo>        ok, makes sense. 
17:11:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me; where should it be scheduled? 
17:11:20  <garyo>        2.x p4 
17:11:37  <sgk>  i like garyo's p4 suggestion, i thought perhaps 2.x just so it's not hanging too long 
17:11:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; I'll also let sgk schedule it when he adds the patch. 
17:11:55  <sgk>  roger that 
17:12:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1187: consensus 
17:12:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1745 
17:12:53  <sgk>  is +VS sufficient by itself? 
17:13:01  <sgk>  this one might also be +Easy 
17:13:11  <garyo>        certainly should be! 
17:13:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     if one is to believe the VS schedule, it should be 1.3. 
17:13:22  <garyo>        I think also 2.x 
17:13:34  <sgk>  it's not a regression, so I'm okay with post 1.3 
17:13:39  <garyo>        Agreed. 
17:13:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, but 2.1 surely... 
17:13:59  <sgk>  yes, 2.1 
17:14:02  <garyo>        It's an enhancement.  I could go w/ 2.1. 
17:14:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo? 
17:14:11  <garyo>        ok 
17:14:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:14:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1883, no opinion 
17:14:40  <garyo>        1883: do we have a ticket for integrating the new windows installer? 
17:14:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     er, no idea... 
17:14:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     we should... 
17:14:57  <sgk>  we should 
17:14:59  <sgk>  jijnx 
17:15:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     jinx 
17:15:01  <sgk>  jinx 
17:15:05  <sgk>  jinx! 
17:15:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     what's a double jinx? 
17:15:25  <sgk>  metajinx! 
17:15:17  <garyo>        OK, so I say make a ticket for that (2.1 p2) and close this as a dup of that. 
17:15:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, who should own the integration ticket? 
17:16:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (sudden silence) 
17:16:36  <garyo>        Lukas, I think. 
17:16:48  <garyo>        And I'll help since I'm his mentor. 
17:17:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Works; do you know his Tigris ID? 
17:17:33  <garyo>        not off the top of my head.  Last name is Erlinghagen. 
17:17:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll make you QA 
17:17:42  <sgk>  good plan 
17:17:43  <garyo>        great idea 
17:17:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:18:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1945, a lot of options 
17:18:45  <sgk>  how about #1?  least work now, so not much lost effort if --implicit-cache goes away 
17:18:48  *      loonycyborg is really pestered by []( 
17:19:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, is that related to 1945? 
17:20:55  <loonycyborg>  [GregNoel](GregNoel): No. Probably. 
17:21:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, hang on then; we'll look at it next. 
17:19:46  <garyo>        I'd be OK w/ that, but anything that removes spurious stuff from the .sconsign is good in by book (which means I slightly prefer #3) 
17:20:07  <sgk>  agreed, #3 is conceptually more attractive 
17:20:34  <sgk>  (heads up:  i'll have a short break in ~5 minutes when i board the shuttle) 
17:20:35  <garyo>        Anyway 1945 2.x p2 Ludwig? 
17:20:53  <sgk>  the sounds good to me 
17:21:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, someone as QA? 
17:21:08  <sgk>  probably me 
17:21:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Done, 2.x p2 Ludwig w/ Steven as QA 
17:22:22  <sgk>  2096: consensus 
17:22:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2443?  It's assigned to Gary 
17:22:30  <sgk>  oh, sorry, we were going to look at 2443 
17:22:34  <garyo>        2443 is scheduled for me to do in the 2.1 timeframe. 
17:22:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     so, supposedly two or three months out 
17:23:03  *      sgk has quit (Quit: sgk) 
17:23:07  <Jason_at_Intel>       is this a regression? 
17:23:18  <garyo>        I don't remember the details but it didn't seem terribly difficult, either omit the bad kw or handle it... 
17:24:00  <loonycyborg>  It's definitely a regression. 
17:24:21  *      sgk (~[sgk@](mailto:sgk@ has joined #scons 
17:24:36  <sgk>  ...and we're back 
17:24:46  <garyo>        Unfortunately 3883 is a merge changeset.  Probably really r3820. 
17:24:51  <Jason_at_Intel>       I generally of the opinion regression have to be fixed quick if possible 
17:24:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Looking at it, the problem may be a call to an internal function in that's changed... 
17:25:43  <garyo>        Russel, can you submit a patch? 
17:26:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Russel's not here? 
17:26:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Do you mean Sergey? 
17:26:45  <garyo>        Sorry yes! 
17:28:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, we lose you? 
17:30:55  <loonycyborg>  [GregNoel](GregNoel): No. 
17:27:22  <garyo>        I'm looking at the old chat log and Steven thought line 699 of was OK (according to Greg) but it looked buggy to me. 
17:28:41  <garyo>        I think Steven and I should look at it off list and decide.  If it's a regression we may be able to squeeze it in, esp. if we are putting out another 1.3 checkpoint which I think we need to. 
17:29:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (I hope we have time to discuss that later) 
17:29:22  <sgk>  agreed re: another 1.3 checkpoint 
17:29:43  <sgk>  if we gave our releases code words we should name this one "zombie" since it won't die 
17:29:52  <garyo>        :-/ 
17:29:57  <Jason_at_Intel>       :-) 
17:30:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (I agree as well; I'm wondering if we should put in the deferred changesets.) 
17:30:12  <sgk>  at this point, probably 
17:30:15  <garyo>        I'm thinking the same thing. 
17:30:37  <garyo>        Anyway, 2443?  Omit the executor there, or handle it in subst_list? 
17:28:57  <sgk>  aha 
17:29:04  <sgk>  i think i see the problem 
17:30:48  <sgk>  handle it in subst_list() 
17:30:58  <garyo>        ok, I'll do that. 
17:30:56  <sgk>  it's being handled in Environment.subst_list() correctly 
17:31:13  <sgk>  but not in the [NoSubstitutionProxy](NoSubstitutionProxy) that handles the default environment case 
17:31:19  <garyo>        (right, just handle it all the way down) 
17:31:18  <sgk>  that's where the problem is 
17:31:36  <garyo>        ok, got it. 
17:31:39  <loonycyborg>  I hacked around it in my install, but it's probably not good idea to submit my hack. 
17:31:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, do we need to reschedule the issue? 
17:32:06  <sgk>  put my name on 2443 so it's on my radar screen 
17:32:09  <garyo>        loonycyborg: I think we have a handle on it now.  Yes, let's do it for 1.3 unless it gets more complicated than I think. 
17:32:10  <sgk>  p1 due to the regression? 
17:32:16  <garyo>        ok w/ me. 
17:32:25  <sgk>  and... 1.3? 
17:32:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; I'll assign it to Gary with Steven as QA 
17:33:29  <loonycyborg>  garyo: It's good to know it's going to be fixed before 1.3 
17:33:44  <garyo>        will do my best :-) 
17:32:27  <techtonik>    [GregNoel](GregNoel): I am here, but not completely sure - it  is 3 am. and I feel like being partially somewhere else. =) 
17:32:38  <techtonik>    hello 
17:32:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     techtonik, message above 
17:32:58  *      sgk has decided that techtonik is his new hero 
17:32:58  <garyo>        Hi techtonik 
17:33:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     It must be pushing 5am for Sergey... 
17:34:16  <garyo>        ok, so onward... where were we? 
17:34:24  <sgk>  i think 2096? 
17:34:38  <sgk>  consensus 2.x p3 +sconf_revamp there 
17:34:39  <garyo>        right, consensus. 
17:34:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes, done 
17:34:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2249 consensus but needs a priority 
17:35:19  <sgk>  2249:  p3 
17:35:25  <garyo>        no more than p3 
17:35:35  <sgk>  i could be talked into p2 
17:36:03  <garyo>        p3 or p4 for me. 
17:36:12  <garyo>        let's do p3. 
17:36:19  <sgk>  p3 then 
17:36:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     p3 looks like consensus; done 
17:36:35  <sgk>  2304 
17:36:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2304 
17:36:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     jinx 
17:36:45  <garyo>        this is already assigned to Jason. 
17:37:15  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2304: Jason was supposed to research this issue to see if a code fragment from Parts could deal with the problem. 
17:36:49  <Jason_at_Intel>       still working on two fixes for it 
17:36:55  <sgk>  ah, okay 
17:37:12  <sgk>  then why deferred to this week...?  jus to revisit it for status? 
17:37:24  <Jason_at_Intel>       actually is there a reason why we could not make all file precious by default? 
17:37:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Backward compatibility? 
17:37:56  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  boy, that would break a bunch of things 
17:38:14  <sgk>  especially all the uses of env.Command() for one-off scripts 
17:38:00  <Jason_at_Intel>       1 good reason 
17:38:00  <garyo>        Windows can't overwrite a file in ues. 
17:38:08  <Jason_at_Intel>       well i have that fixed 
17:38:17  <Jason_at_Intel>       however fdopen break the stack trace 
17:38:26  <Jason_at_Intel>       working on work around to that 
17:39:05  <sgk>  well, i'll never say never, so we can take a look if you think you have a really good solution 
17:39:07  <garyo>        I think this bug should be treated narrowly: just fail the build and go back to the interactive loop. 
17:39:16  <Jason_at_Intel>       or we catch the unlink actions in the node and don't error 
17:39:34  <sgk>  agree w/garyo 
17:40:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Returning to the interactive loop covers my basic objection 
17:39:52  <sgk>  i was going to just have it not make --interactive bomb out 
17:40:22  <sgk>  not try to have it actually replace the in-use binary if the underlying OS doesn't normally allow it 
17:40:17  <garyo>        right, catch whatever's happening and reset the world as much as possible. 
17:40:28  <Jason_at_Intel>       so best case I will having this like linux.. worse.. we catch and excetion 
17:41:09  <garyo>        Jason: I wouldn't recommend even trying to overwrite a running file; Windows users don't expect it. 
17:41:17  <garyo>        (even if you could make it work) 
17:41:18  <Jason_at_Intel>       well I will have a patch in about a week I think 
17:41:35  <sgk>  okay, send it out for review when you think it's ready 
17:41:36  <sgk>  thnx 
17:41:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Schedule it for 2.1 p? Jason? 
17:41:44  <garyo>        OK, sounds good -- shall we revisit the bug at the next party and review the patch? 
17:41:57  <garyo>        2.1 p3 jason? 
17:41:58  <sgk>  2.1 p[23] Jason 
17:42:00  <Jason_at_Intel>       Sounds good 
17:42:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2.1 p3 looks like the consensus; done 
17:43:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2536 
17:44:03  <garyo>        2536: leave open til Cem gets a tigris acct, then assign to him 
17:44:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     that's done; the question is the policy in case he can't continue with it. 
17:45:13  <garyo>        Greg: if no one champions a SEP it has to lie fallow or die. 
17:45:20  <garyo>        (IMHO) 
17:45:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Well, I think it's a good idea, but I'm going to be in surgery 
17:46:05  <garyo>        I think it's fine too, but we have way more good ideas than implementors right now 
17:46:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Sigh.  OK, if he can't continue, back to issues@scons. 
17:46:04  <sgk>  we should probably have a timetable 
17:46:32  <sgk>  N months without sponsor activity => remove assignee, probably announce that it needs a new owner 
17:46:37  <sgk>  N more months => close it as abandoned 
17:47:12  <garyo>        Sensible, but maybe with so few of them we can just be ad hoc about it for now? 
17:47:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Values for N (and should the latter be M?)? 
17:47:26  <sgk>  3 and 6, or 3 and 9 ? 
17:47:39  <sgk>  latter gives it a whole year before declaring it really dead 
17:47:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     3 and 9 is a year... 
17:47:53  <garyo>        a whole year = time to release 1.3 :-/ 
17:48:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ;-{ 
17:48:13  <sgk>  right, depends on whether we want to shade it towards accomodatingly leaving it open 
17:48:23  <sgk>  or trying to prod things along 
17:48:36  <garyo>        how about 6 + 9? 
17:48:45  <sgk>  i'm okay with either approach, so long as we decide and communicate 
17:48:45  <garyo>        I know I'm easygoing 
17:49:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, let's take this to email; lots more to do 
17:49:28  <garyo>        right. 
17:49:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2539 
17:49:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     consensus 
17:50:04  <garyo>        yup 
17:50:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2541, do we have consensus? 
17:50:48  <Jason_at_Intel>       add quotes 
17:50:54  <sgk>  2.1 p2 sk okay with you guys? 
17:51:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
17:51:09  <garyo>        yes. 
17:51:12  <sgk>  done 
17:51:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:51:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2542 consensus 
17:51:43  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2545 consensus 
17:51:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2549 
17:52:08  <sgk>  consensus, too, looks like 
17:52:29  <garyo>        I think +Easy w/ invite to Russel is OK. 
17:52:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2549: It's not +Easy; the logic must detect which library is available and provide the correct flag.  That's less trivial. 
17:54:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     It becomes a configuration problem; check for which library is present and set the right flag. 
17:52:49  <sgk>  any reason not to just assign to Russel? 
17:52:58  <sgk>  he can give it back if he really objects 
17:53:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I don't think he's a Python coder. 
17:53:30  <sgk>  ah 
17:53:38  <sgk>  that would be a problem, then... 
17:54:24  <garyo>        Can we at least ask him for more details as to what it needs to do?  We don't have a clue. 
17:54:39  <sgk>  that sounds like the right next step, back to OP for clarification 
17:54:41  <garyo>        (Where it should look, whether it can always use phobos2, etc.) 
17:55:05  <garyo>        Maybe DMD has a -use-lib-if-present flag :-) 
17:55:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ;-} that would be too easy 
17:57:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2549, consensus to reflect back to Russel for clarification? 
17:57:17  <sgk>  2549:  yes 
17:57:20  <garyo>        2549: yes. 
17:57:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2549, done 
17:54:42  <techtonik>    Is the spreadsheet automatically syncronized? 
17:55:33  <garyo>        techtonik: Greg does it manually, he's our hero. 
17:56:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     techtonik, if you mean synchronized between multiple updaters, yes 
17:57:11  <sgk>  techtonik:  but it's not automatically synchronized with the database 
17:58:42  <techtonik>    I would add issue autolinking given write access to the spreadsheet. 
17:59:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     techtonik, I could never get it to work 
17:59:42  <garyo>        techtonik: follow the instructions in and you'll get write access I think 
17:56:18  <garyo>        2550: no idea 
17:56:48  <sgk>  2550:  research sk 
17:56:53  <sgk>  +Java 
17:57:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2550, what priority? 
17:58:09  <garyo>        research. 
17:58:16  <sgk>  p3 
17:58:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:58:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2551 
17:58:39  <sgk>  doc p4 sk? 
17:59:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2551, 1.3? 
17:59:31  <sgk>  sure 
17:59:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2551, done 
18:00:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2552 
18:00:54  <garyo>        ask OP for patch, then reassign 
18:01:13  <garyo>        I can ask him. 
18:01:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; I'll assign it to you 
18:01:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2553 
18:02:11  <sgk>  same? 
18:02:29  <garyo>        related to 2552.  I'll take it, and ask him if he'll work on it. 
18:02:33  <sgk>  thnx 
18:02:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:02:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2554 
18:03:04  <sgk>  2554 and 2555:  both related to CHANGED_TARGETS, give them to me 
18:03:15  <sgk>  2.x p3 
18:03:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; tks 
18:03:37  <garyo>        thanks! 
18:03:50  <sgk>  2556:  thnx for sending back to OP 
18:03:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2556, no test case; close as invalid? 
18:04:09  <sgk>  yeah 
18:04:17  <sgk>  invite re-opening w/test case, blah blah blah 
18:04:30  <garyo>        ok, I guess. 
18:04:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:04:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     On to new issues! 
18:04:45  <garyo>        I will have to go soon, 10 min 
18:04:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     three more... 
18:05:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2558 
18:05:20  <sgk>  consensus back to OP? 
18:05:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Back to OP to revise patch? 
18:05:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sorta jinx? 
18:05:48  <garyo>        Greg's comment is right. 
18:05:54  <garyo>        back to OP to use [SideEffect](SideEffect). 
18:06:12  <garyo>        (and say we'll integrate it at that point, to be nice) 
18:06:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; review next time. 
18:06:21  <sgk>  2559:  research SK 
18:06:24  <Jason_at_Intel>       2559, I have a patch work around for this in Parts by overriding Clone. This was a real problem with our builds... 
18:06:48  <sgk>  er, i meant, 2559:  research Jason_at_Intel 
18:06:55  <sgk>  :-) 
18:07:05  <Jason_at_Intel>       well I think code review it when we get there :-) 
18:07:21  <garyo>        Works for me. 
18:07:27  <sgk>  me too 
18:07:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     what priority? 
18:07:42  <sgk>  p2? 
18:07:55  <garyo>        ok, or p3 
18:07:59  <sgk>  (5-10 minutes to buh-bye) 
18:08:05  <garyo>        ditto 
18:08:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     We probably can't get it in before 2.1, so p2 or p3 should be fine 
18:08:17  <sgk>  p3 then 
18:08:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:08:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     last one 
18:08:29  <garyo>        2561: I can take this, for 2.1 or 2.x. 
18:08:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2561 
18:08:34  <sgk>  awesome 
18:10:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     what priority for 2561? 
18:11:12  <garyo>        2561: enhancement, p3? 
18:08:42  <techtonik>    Web site bugs doesn't seem to get into spreadsheet. 
18:08:59  <garyo>        good point. 
18:09:12  <garyo>        do you have a favorite? 
18:09:14  <garyo>        :-) 
18:09:15  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yeah, that's an oversight: 2560 is a website bug. 
18:10:18  <garyo>        Yeah, that's a good idea in 2560.  I should do that, or maybe Bill? 
18:10:29  <garyo>        (Bill's done more than his share recently) 
18:10:35  <garyo>        so give it to me. 
18:10:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2560, it already is 
18:11:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     You're the default assignee. 
18:11:11  <techtonik>    I can help with cleaning up the site. 
18:11:28  <garyo>        techtonik: I'll email you then and show you around! 
18:11:35  <sgk>  techtonik++ 
18:11:37  <techtonik>    For example []( 
18:12:14  <garyo>        yes, that one too would be great. 
18:12:55  <garyo>        I'll email you the info in the next day or so, ping me if you don't hear from me; I get ridiculously busy sometimes. 
18:13:14  <techtonik>    garyo: np 
18:12:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Web site bugs aren't tied to release schedule; only "research" is possible, I think 
18:13:12  <garyo>        Greg: that's OK, we don't get that many of them. 
18:13:27  <garyo>        Sometimes people just email []( which goes to me too. 
18:13:53  <techtonik>    What is this "research" - do if a time permits? 
18:14:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     techtonik, "figure out the problem and fix it" 
18:14:19  <garyo>        research = look into it and decide how hard it is, what's really going on.  Goal is to re-triage after researching. 
18:15:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     techtonik, unfortunately we only have "unassigned" and "research" for web issues; we've never needed more. 
18:14:19  <techtonik>    Or, let me check one bug.. 
18:13:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, that's it!  Anything to say about 1.3 in the 30 seconds left? 
18:14:50  <garyo>        1.3: need another ckpoint but need to pin down behavior re: no VC installed or broken. 
18:15:19  <garyo>        Need to do our best given the limits of existing toolchain, but not go overboard. 
18:15:41  <sgk>  garyo:  any opinions on the bdbaddog / cournapeau discussion? 
18:15:42  <garyo>        I want to talk it over w/ bdbaddog too, he's in the trenches on this. 
18:16:09  <garyo>        sgk: I think I do have opinions but I need to reread the discussion. 
18:16:43  <garyo>        sgk: basically I'm OK w/ ignoring bat file failures *most* of the time, but not if it was explicitly selected. 
18:16:59  <sgk>  that makes sense 
18:15:47  <techtonik>    This one should be fixed before 1.3 []( 
18:16:35  <techtonik>    Many frameworks are installed via easy_install, especially in virtualenv. 
18:17:15  <sgk>  (1 minute) 
18:17:33  <garyo>        techtonik: doubt we can do that for 1.3.  It's closed for everything but regressions... 
18:17:44  <sgk>  techtonik:  so basically we just need to add an additional dir to sys.path to make it work? 
18:17:53  <techtonik>    sgk: exactly 
18:18:02  <sgk>  if that's all, i can look at that for the next 1.3 checkpoint 
18:18:05  <garyo>        hm, is it that easy? 
18:18:13  <sgk>  1.3 p1 sk 
18:18:20  <garyo>        if so and it's low risk I'd be OK. 
18:18:22  <techtonik>    I have a patch for windows batch. 
18:18:31  <sgk>  gotta run, send me any more info 
18:18:35  *      sgk (~[sgk@](mailto:sgk@ has left #scons 
18:18:35  <garyo>        sk: thanks! 
18:18:57  <garyo>        I have to go too... see you folks in a couple of weeks.  We'll plan the 1.3 ckpt on the ML. 
18:19:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, thanks all; cul... 
18:19:06  <garyo>        ciao 
18:19:10  *      garyo (~[]( has left #scons 
18:19:15  <Jason_at_Intel>       later! 
18:19:27  *      Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]) 
18:19:49  <techtonik>    That was too fast. I probably need to subscribe to dev after all. 
18:42:19  *      loonycyborg has quit (Quit: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) 
19:28:34  *      techtonik has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 

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.