-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 311
IrcLog2010 02 02
Mats Wichmann edited this page Apr 28, 2022
·
3 revisions
14:17:31 * techtonik (~chatzilla@2607:f298:2:107:230:48ff:fecb:9f0b) has joined #scons
16:51:27 * garyo (~[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
16:59:09 <garyo> hi folks
17:00:19 * Jason_at_Intel (~[chatzilla@12.18.240.224](mailto:chatzilla@12.18.240.224)) 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 [http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2443](http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2443)
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@67.218.103.57](mailto:sgk@67.218.103.57)) 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 action.py 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 Action.py 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 tigris.org 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 scons.org/wiki/BugParty 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.
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 [http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2544](http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2544)
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 [webmaster@scons.org](mailto:webmaster@scons.org) 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 [http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051](http://scons.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051)
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@67.218.103.57](mailto:sgk@67.218.103.57)) 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 (~[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
18:19:15 <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)