Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
IrcLog2010 04 27
16:35:36 * Jason_at_Intel (~[firstname.lastname@example.org](mailto:email@example.com)) has joined #SCONS 16:54:01 * garyo (~[firstname.lastname@example.org](mailto:email@example.com)) has joined #SCONS 16:54:41 * bdbaddog (~[firstname.lastname@example.org](mailto:email@example.com)) has joined #SCONS 16:58:10 * [GregNoel](GregNoel) is here and getting set up, another couple of minutes... 16:58:26 * sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-vtdxqwybqnmycvwp) has joined #SCONS 16:58:28 * [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away 16:59:36 <garyo> All, Jason & I've been having some toolchain discussions offline. Hopefully I can write something up and/or Jason can implement something around it soon... based around iapat ideas mostly. 17:01:23 <garyo> OK, shall we dive into the bug list? 17:01:25 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hi, everybody... Looks like a quorum, shall we start? 17:01:41 <sgk> sure, any sign of greg yet? (he just leaves himself logged in usually) 17:01:48 <sgk> oh, there you are 17:01:49 <sgk> ! 17:01:50 <garyo> He's really here 17:01:55 <sgk> cool 17:02:00 <Jason_at_Intel> he needed a minutes to setup 17:02:08 <sgk> let's go then 17:02:11 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2581 17:02:48 <garyo> Seems like there's not a lot we can do about that in the near term, right? 17:02:55 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> concur 17:02:58 <sgk> i don't think it's a quick fix 17:03:03 <sgk> so post-2.2, probably 17:03:16 <Jason_at_Intel> agreeded 17:03:34 <garyo> 2.x p3 sk then? (With option to punt further if needed) 17:03:39 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'm even inclined to say it's post 2.x 17:03:40 <sgk> 2.x p4? i'm pretty sure re-ordering the lines is a valid workaround, lousy though that is 17:03:50 <garyo> sgk: my thought too. 17:04:15 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'll go along, even though 2.x is overfull 17:04:30 <garyo> p4 makes it puntable 17:04:38 <sgk> wouldn't surprise me if all 2.x p4 get pushed out when we re-evaluate them 17:04:55 <sgk> but it at least makes sure we take a look when it comes time to reprioritize 17:04:59 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ok, 2.x p4 sk 17:05:05 <sgk> done 17:05:06 <garyo> good 17:05:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2609 17:05:29 <garyo> no response yet, defer 17:05:34 <sgk> agree 17:05:35 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Are we still waiting for more info? 17:05:42 <sgk> i think so, yes 17:05:45 <garyo> Yes, I asked on 4/17 17:05:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ten days... 17:05:55 <garyo> maybe it's too long to wait? 17:06:29 <garyo> I'm sure there's some user error in there that maybe we could catch, but without the OP we can't do anything. 17:06:30 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> kick him again, then close next time? 17:06:30 <sgk> if we want to be super-nice, update it with a note re: we'll close it at the next bug party 17:06:39 <garyo> agreed. 17:06:41 <sgk> yes 17:06:44 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done 17:07:07 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 1610 17:07:14 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> oops, 2610 17:07:41 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I don't know where this file is read, but would universal newlines help? 17:07:36 <sgk> evil cygwin 17:07:40 <sgk> evil, evil, evil cygwin 17:07:49 <bdbaddog> oh please. it's not that bad. 17:07:56 <sgk> :-) 17:08:03 <garyo> I use cygwin all the time. 17:08:06 <bdbaddog> Ditto. 17:08:12 <sgk> as a user, it's great 17:08:13 <bdbaddog> for years and years and years. 17:08:14 <garyo> It's dos that's evil in the first place. 17:08:24 <bdbaddog> many x-platform build systems with it too. 17:08:30 <sgk> trying to develop for the cross-product of non-cygwin x cygwin? another thing altogether 17:08:36 <garyo> anyway, I have no idea where to even start on this one. Where's that file list coming from? 17:08:51 <sgk> right, i'm not sure myself 17:08:54 <garyo> and where is scons parsing it? 17:09:23 <sgk> we usually generate those, not pick them up from a file 17:09:29 <garyo> I guess we look stupid if we ask the OP for this info. Who wrote the swig builder? 17:09:44 <sgk> probably me, long ago enough to have forgotten the details 17:09:52 <sgk> i think we probably slap my name on it by default 17:10:08 <sgk> and there's this guy who just popped up on the ML with an itch to work on Java 17:10:11 <sgk> with Russel Winder 17:10:14 <garyo> It's probably a trivial fix once the right place is found... 17:10:31 <garyo> sgk: this one might be a good one for him to start with. 17:10:36 <sgk> sure 17:10:48 <sgk> i'll take a quick look to see if it's obvious after a little digging 17:10:51 <garyo> can you suggest it to him, with a hint or two to get him started? 17:11:00 <garyo> (or what you said of course) 17:10:56 <sgk> right 17:11:21 <sgk> and contact him+Russel re: starting in earnest on refactoring Java support 17:11:51 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> How should the issue be handled? 17:11:48 <sgk> so... -research- sk (for now) 17:11:57 <garyo> That sounds good. 17:12:00 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> priority? 17:12:12 <garyo> p4, only one person 17:12:30 <sgk> sounds good 17:12:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ok, done 17:12:45 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2572 17:12:49 <garyo> invalid I think 17:12:53 <sgk> agreed 17:12:55 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> consensus 17:12:58 <sgk> done 17:13:07 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2576, consensus 17:13:20 <garyo> 2582, i closed 17:13:20 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2587, garyo +1 17:13:26 <garyo> sorry 2587 17:13:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2588 17:13:39 <sgk> yes, garyo +1 17:13:39 <Jason_at_Intel> already closed? 17:14:02 <garyo> yes 17:14:11 <garyo> sorry, not 2588 17:14:21 <sgk> right, 2587 already closed 17:14:46 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2588 17:14:52 <sgk> 2588: 2.x p3 +Easy ? 17:15:04 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hmmm... 17:15:17 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Yeah, I can go with that. 17:15:17 <garyo> sgk: ok, but I want a testcase first if you're ok w/ that 17:15:25 <sgk> testcase++ 17:15:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> agree w/testcase 17:15:49 <garyo> so we wait for yann to give us a testcase, then it's 2.x p3 +Easy. 17:15:52 <sgk> garyo: you mean, contact the OP for a testcase? 17:15:55 <sgk> yeah 17:15:57 <garyo> I already did 17:16:06 <sgk> garyo++ again 17:16:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ++ 17:16:14 <garyo> hmm, that was a long time ago now though 17:16:19 <garyo> I'll ping him again. 17:16:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Put it on your plate for now? 17:16:36 <garyo> ok 17:16:39 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> research p2? 17:16:46 <garyo> fine w/ me 17:16:49 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done 17:16:58 <sgk> 2589: consensus invalid 17:16:59 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2589 17:17:04 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> consensus 17:17:17 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2590 close garyo++ 17:17:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2599 17:18:09 <garyo> Agree w/ Greg, we should do all this kind of thing in toolchain, but for now it's working as designed (though annoying) 17:18:25 <garyo> Mark as invalid, assume workaround worked. 17:18:41 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Steven had some thoughts about doc? 17:18:55 <sgk> yeah, if our doc example uses a string, that's misleading 17:19:09 <garyo> it does, and it is. 17:19:21 <garyo> ok, mark as doc w/ a note to fix example? 17:19:25 <sgk> ++ 17:19:29 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> who? 17:19:29 <garyo> for our new tech writer? :-) 17:19:31 <Jason_at_Intel> not sure.. I always use list.. no issues 17:20:06 <sgk> I raised the doc issue, i should probably own that 17:20:16 <garyo> Jason: you can also use Append() etc., they always work. 17:20:28 <garyo> just fyi. 17:20:32 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> then when? and priority? 17:20:43 <Jason_at_Intel> I mean when i set a var .. i use a list not CLvar 17:20:51 <garyo> list is fine too. 17:20:59 <Jason_at_Intel> I "don't get what value it has" 17:21:12 <sgk> (heads up: 2-3 minutes until I get on the shuttle, I'll drop a minute or two until I reconnect) 17:21:21 <garyo> sgk, 2.x, doc, p3? 17:21:25 <sgk> done 17:21:29 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done 17:21:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2600 17:21:51 <sgk> any reasons MAXLINELENGTH isn't the workaround he wants? 17:22:13 <garyo> I doubt his LINKCOM is using TEMPFILE, which is undocumented afaict 17:22:34 <sgk> :-( 17:22:39 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree 17:22:59 <sgk> back in a bit 17:23:00 * sgk has quit (Quit: sgk) 17:23:11 <garyo> I think it's important to doc that. I'll take it for 2.something, p3. 17:23:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2.2? 17:23:38 <garyo> sounds good. 17:23:42 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> ok, done 17:24:11 <Jason_at_Intel> +1 17:23:49 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2601 17:23:59 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> consensus 17:24:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> but needs milestone, priority 17:24:11 <garyo> sgk needs to be here to decide :-) 17:24:31 <garyo> I think 2.2 p3 17:24:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hmmm... 2.1, I think 17:24:53 * sgk (~[firstname.lastname@example.org](mailto:email@example.com)) has joined #SCONS 17:25:09 <bdbaddog> +1 17:25:14 <garyo> Hi Steven, 2601, documenting new cpp scanner: how about 2.1 p3 you? 17:25:24 <sgk> sold 17:25:27 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done 17:25:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2602 17:26:26 <garyo> I think we can close it; I tried to hook him into contributing because I think he cares about this stuff, maybe he'll respond. 17:26:38 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: how reusable do you think your subprocess work in parts is? 17:27:16 <Jason_at_Intel> hmm.. I plan to tweak it a little more.. it is bound to a reporting API i have for coloring and logging as well 17:27:34 <Jason_at_Intel> but unhooking that would not be hard 17:27:12 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I agree with Steven about identifying the big projects and at least listing them... 17:27:41 <sgk> [GregNoel](GregNoel): let's see how much time we have after the bugs 17:27:55 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> sgk, agree 17:27:51 <sgk> we could start by just brainstorming all the big things we know we'd like to do 17:27:59 <sgk> and maybe prioritize / roadmap them next time? 17:28:16 <garyo> ++ 17:28:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> worksforme 17:27:19 <sgk> I'm okay with closing 2602 in the meantime 17:27:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> invalid it is 17:28:37 <sgk> okay, then close 2602, and add SPAWN refactoring to a roadmap discussion 17:28:36 <garyo> 2604 seems like consensus 17:28:59 <sgk> 2604: rob is the man 17:29:04 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2604, consensus 17:29:12 <sgk> 2606: 2.x p3 sk 17:29:32 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2606, if Steven is volunteering... 17:29:45 <sgk> yeah 17:29:48 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done 17:30:14 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2607 17:30:23 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> consensus on toolchain 17:30:28 <garyo> yes 17:30:31 <sgk> yes 17:30:36 <Jason_at_Intel> yes 17:30:50 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> The rest of the toolchain issues are 3.x p3 17:30:58 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> (except one) 17:31:03 <sgk> and... that looks like it 17:31:06 <sgk> quick work tonight 17:31:16 <garyo> 2608? 17:31:23 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> er, 2608? 17:31:45 <sgk> ? is that in the spreadsheet? 17:31:53 <bdbaddog> yes. progress #'s 17:32:01 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> You even commented on it. 17:32:14 <garyo> sgk: if you want to take a crack at it I see how it could be useful. I'd support that effort. 17:32:23 <garyo> we sure get asked for it a lot. 17:32:27 <sgk> okay, nm, i seem to have a shortened spreadhseet here 17:32:32 * sgk refreshes... 17:32:40 <garyo> damn google... :-) :-) 17:33:11 <sgk> no kidding... 17:33:16 <sgk> stupid chrome 17:33:22 <sgk> ah, there we go 17:33:35 <sgk> hey, did you guys know there are more issue farther down the spreadsheet...? ::-) 17:33:59 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> No, that's the last one. 17:34:07 <garyo> 222 is the last line in mine 17:34:17 <bdbaddog> ditto 17:34:17 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 220? 17:34:25 <bdbaddog> row # 17:34:30 <Jason_at_Intel> 2608 is the last? 17:34:33 <garyo> yes. 17:34:34 <sgk> looks like 17:34:36 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> oops, yep, 222 17:34:46 * sgk slinks off and stops making bad jokes 17:34:46 <Jason_at_Intel> oh 222 row 17:33:46 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I like Gary's idea of a wiki page to figure out what we can do. I'd contribute to that... 17:35:18 <sgk> [GregNoel](GregNoel): do we have a keyword for TNG? 17:35:35 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Uh, I think so; if not, it's easy to add. 17:35:35 <Jason_at_Intel> TNG? 17:35:43 <sgk> anything we do to the current infrastructure to support this is throwaway 17:35:45 <garyo> sgk: why not start by putting it on the wiki, and if people like it we add it with a descriptive name that shows it's approximate. 17:35:59 <garyo> tng=taskmaster next gen 17:36:46 <Jason_at_Intel> the next generation star trek goes across my mind everytime i see that 17:36:07 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> [ApproximatePercentage](ApproximatePercentage) 17:36:16 <garyo> yeah, something like that 17:36:27 <garyo> but it needs to be a callback, let's not design it here. 17:36:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> [ApproximatePercentageThatMayGoBackward](ApproximatePercentageThatMayGoBackward) 17:36:44 <garyo> :-) 17:36:36 <sgk> I'm not following you... put it on the wiki? you mean a discussion about whether people want this feature? 17:37:00 <garyo> sgk: no, put the code itself on the wiki for people to try. 17:37:13 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> No, a discussion on how we can implement it, and how approximate the options would be. 17:37:17 <garyo> well, that was my original suggestion anyway. 17:37:27 <sgk> ulp. what i had in mind would probably be pretty invasive 17:37:46 <garyo> invasive as in changes, or invasive as in using undocumented apis? 17:37:54 <Jason_at_Intel> any more so than the buildNow tool? 17:37:54 <sgk> i wasn't thinking about the walk-the-tree-once-to-count idea 17:38:01 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> No surprise, but invasive or not, it's not obvious what the tradeoffs are. 17:38:03 <sgk> buildNow tool? 17:38:31 <sgk> invasive as in I was thinking avoid the duplicate tree walk by counting Nodes as they're added 17:38:32 <Jason_at_Intel> I might have teh wrong name... but someone made a tool to build a target 17:38:34 <Jason_at_Intel> RIghtNow 17:38:41 <Jason_at_Intel> that was it i think 17:38:56 <garyo> never heard of it 17:39:05 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: send me a pointer / link? I haven't heard of that 17:39:06 <Jason_at_Intel> so it calls the taskmaster and stuff to build a target right then 17:39:20 <garyo> Hm, there it is in the wiki. Will have to check it out. 17:39:22 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> sgk, yeah, but a LOT of nodes do nothing: rfile duplicates, ... 17:39:31 <sgk> wow, sounds only slightly less gnarly than the SConf stuff... :-/ 17:39:52 <sgk> [GregNoel](GregNoel): I'm doing a lot of hand-waving, yeah 17:39:58 <Jason_at_Intel> [http://www.scons.org/wiki/RightNow](http://www.scons.org/wiki/RightNow) 17:40:28 <sgk> it just wouldn't be an easily-patchable, self-contained bit of code behind an if-test, say 17:40:56 <Jason_at_Intel> thought it would be useful to do something like this in Parts as well to speed up build times for large incremental builds 17:41:14 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> What's wrong with "Execute()"? 17:41:31 <sgk> Execute() runs an action, no dependency checking 17:41:55 <garyo> right, and doesn't set the target as uptodate 17:42:15 <Jason_at_Intel> ideally i can read other Parts files while i start build leaf components 17:42:18 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Um, what runs configure checks, then? 17:42:36 <sgk> heh. that's pretty interesting 17:42:54 <sgk> bet he's not using Configure() at all 17:43:12 <sgk> Jason_at_intel: are you using [RightNow](RightNow)() in Parts ? 17:43:19 <Jason_at_Intel> not yet 17:43:33 <Jason_at_Intel> I was thinking about it for the next drop 17:44:06 <Jason_at_Intel> not directly... but build it in to Parts ... 17:44:18 <garyo> [RightNow](RightNow) code isn't very big. A page or less. 17:44:29 <sgk> it's pretty fresh, his initial (only) checkin was 17 March 17:44:52 <Jason_at_Intel> If i allow user to call right now .... the read phase would take forever 17:45:16 <garyo> anyway, sgk, this [ApproximatePercentageThatMightGoBackwards](ApproximatePercentageThatMightGoBackwards) sounds like an interesting bg task if you get to it, but maybe we can design TNG to make it easier? 17:45:24 <Jason_at_Intel> However it uses the internal code.. a don't know if this would bad for TNG 17:45:42 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> In any event, we're drifting from the topic of issue 2608, the progress indicator. 17:45:44 <Jason_at_Intel> but suggests a dev level API woudl be a nice addition with TNG for doing stuff like this 17:45:44 <sgk> garyo: yes, that's why i was asking about TNG 17:46:10 <garyo> yup, just agreeing w/ you and trying to return to the topic at hand. 17:46:22 <sgk> yeah 17:46:44 <bdbaddog> Hey so Did u guys see my email about the tech writer? 17:46:51 <Jason_at_Intel> so progress bar is an impl for people to try to invasive? 17:47:13 <garyo> I did -- look up a few hundred lines & I mentioned them :-) 17:47:36 <bdbaddog> yup. saw that. 17:47:45 <sgk> bdbaddog: tech writer++ 17:47:56 <sgk> what would be a good next step to explore the fit w/her? 17:48:01 <garyo> Jason: too ugly for a wiki implementation, sgk may try it in the bg but no promises (did I get that right?) 17:48:01 <bdbaddog> any low haning fruit for her to take a wack at? and/or howto's she should go through? 17:48:18 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Steven, could you update the issue with what you think might be possible, now and TNG? 17:48:25 <sgk> garyo: i agree 17:48:36 <Jason_at_Intel> +1 greg 17:48:37 <sgk> [GregNoel](GregNoel): yes, give it to me for updating 17:48:39 <garyo> Is she up for just fixing a few of the easy doc bugs (not the ones that require detailed impl knowledge)? 17:48:46 <bdbaddog> yes. 17:49:01 <garyo> That seems like a great start. 17:49:02 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done, now we can go off-topic. And think about starting a wiki page. 17:49:18 <sgk> bdbaddog: let's you and I sync up off-line re: doc tasks 17:49:22 <garyo> wiki page for roadmap/projects? 17:49:46 <bdbaddog> sgk: sounds good. 17:50:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I was still on wiki page for progress percent, but a wiki page for big projects would be a good thing, too. 17:50:56 <sgk> re: progress percent, sounds like that's on my plate, yes? 17:50:56 <garyo> Maybe sk's comments on 2608 form the basis of the wiki page, if we're lucky 17:51:09 <sgk> that's what i was thinking 17:51:13 <garyo> +1 17:51:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> And while everybody is throwing in topics, how about a 2.0 checkpoint? I think it's ready. 17:51:59 <sgk> cool 17:51:59 <garyo> I can help w/ it this weekend, not before. 17:52:11 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> sgk, yes progress percent is on your plate; I'll have to figure out how. 17:52:15 <garyo> (Well, I can start Fri night) 17:52:43 <sgk> fyi, i'll be out of town and probably mostly off-line this Thursday through next Tuesday 17:53:19 <garyo> No prob for the ckpoint; if it's terrible, we'll just take it down. :-) 17:53:38 <garyo> (Not that it would be of course.) 17:53:44 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Well, I've got one more thing I can work on until Fri, so I guess we'll start then. 17:53:46 <sgk> of course! 17:54:10 <bdbaddog> are we ready for 2.0 checkpoint build? 17:54:23 <sgk> right, that's what [GregNoel](GregNoel) and garyo are discussing 17:54:25 <garyo> That's what Greg's saying, yes. 17:54:51 <garyo> Anyone actually tried it in real life yet? 17:54:55 <bdbaddog> ugh long day.. 17:55:02 <garyo> :-) 17:55:24 <sgk> not that i know of 17:55:26 <bdbaddog> I can do 1.3.1 checkpoint and 2.0 this week if you like. 17:55:32 <garyo> I'll try it on my Windows 7 box. 17:55:53 <garyo> bdbaddog: both? I'll give you a hand of course! 17:56:16 <bdbaddog> yeah no problemo. 17:56:23 <garyo> awesome, you're on. 17:56:40 <garyo> I'll at least help w/ release announcement text etc. 17:56:46 <bdbaddog> i was starting on 1.3.1 ckpoint on sunday, ran out of steam. 17:57:07 <bdbaddog> Sure. That'd be great. We can coordinate via mail. 17:57:15 <garyo> perfect. 17:57:45 <garyo> So, project list? 17:57:56 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> TNG 17:58:03 <garyo> subst 17:58:04 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Toolchain 17:58:13 <garyo> GSoC windows installer 17:58:34 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> (is that a big project or just a merge?) 17:58:35 <sgk> Node refactor 17:58:44 <garyo> Greg: hopefully just merge 17:59:05 <bdbaddog> is the installer Wix or NSIS ? 17:59:20 <garyo> nsis if I remember correctly 17:59:38 <bdbaddog> INSTALLER: k. I have some experience with NSIS 17:59:00 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> sgk, refactor what about Nodes? 17:59:08 <Jason_at_Intel> Nodes 17:59:34 <Jason_at_Intel> and API.. should be easier to use 17:59:09 <sgk> Node hierarchy 17:59:20 <sgk> use composition instead of inheritance 17:59:24 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hmmm... sgk, interacts with TNG. 17:59:45 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> probably minor, though... 17:59:49 <sgk> very possibly 17:59:47 <bdbaddog> How about switching tests to py.test ? 17:59:58 <sgk> componentization model / Parts integration 18:00:08 <garyo> tests as dirs 18:00:27 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> expose test strings 18:00:41 <garyo> greg: what's that mean? 18:00:46 <sgk> yeah, tests as dirs + expose test strings + unittest 18:00:57 <sgk> it's a side effect of tests as dirs 18:01:00 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Test strings go into directories. 18:01:00 <garyo> ok 18:01:09 <sgk> all the Python code that's in in-line strings get put into files 18:01:11 <bdbaddog> as files rather than strings in the test files. 18:01:21 <sgk> so the Python 3.x fixers can operate on them 18:01:16 <garyo> yah, got it. 18:02:08 <garyo> take many tools out of scons core, make them plug-ins 18:01:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> That's a pretty good list. Someone want to start a wiki page? 18:02:22 <garyo> Greg: I'll start the page based on this list. 18:02:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> garyo++ 18:02:57 <sgk> right, most likely coordinating w/Russel Winder re: his ideas for separate Tool development 18:03:17 <sgk> oh, use a DVCS to front the SVN repository for devlopment? 18:03:26 <garyo> sgk: definitely. And adding system site_scons dirs, all that stuff. And interacts w/ toolchain too. 18:03:27 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'm not seeing any more brainstorming; shall we deem the list complete for now? 18:03:42 <sgk> complete enough 18:03:45 <bdbaddog> Yes! 18:03:50 <garyo> sgk: anyone can front svn with a dvcs today. 18:03:57 <sgk> send out a link, we can think and add more for two weeks 18:04:06 <sgk> and then put them in some rough priority order 18:04:14 <garyo> ok, will do. SConsFutureProjects or something. 18:04:34 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> garyo, call it [BigProjects](BigProjects); we can start a separate page for Roadmap. 18:04:44 <sgk> true enough re: front-end development 18:05:02 <garyo> [BigProjects](BigProjects) it is. 18:05:22 * sgk has another 3 minutes or so 18:05:26 <Jason_at_Intel> I can use Bazaar with SCOns and Parts... but i can't use it at work ( crashes) ( same with GIT) 18:05:28 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> SConsBigProjects would work, too. 18:05:29 <sgk> anything else to cover? 18:05:43 <garyo> No, I don't like [BigProjects](BigProjects), that's confusable with "how to do a big project with SCons." Anyway I'll think about it. 18:05:52 <sgk> I've found that I like Mercurial, myself 18:06:18 <garyo> I front a svn repo with git and hg daily. hg is easy, git takes a little more work but no biggie. 18:06:34 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> techtonik has mentioned on the mailing list that he wants to use Hg with SCons SVN. 18:06:44 * sgk needs to get more modern 18:07:04 <garyo> I prefer git because I'm hardcore, but hg is nice & pillowy :-) :-) 18:07:15 <bdbaddog> I'm fine with either hg or git. 18:07:36 <Jason_at_Intel> does hg work with non standard SVN layouts? 18:07:49 <garyo> not easily, they both suck at that 18:08:03 <sgk> okay, i'm gone -- thanks guys 18:08:09 <garyo> g'night Steven! 18:08:14 * sgk (~[firstname.lastname@example.org](mailto:email@example.com)) has left #SCONS 18:08:16 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Me, too; dinner is called.... 18:08:24 <garyo> time for me to go too, homework time for kids 18:08:26 * [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away 18:08:34 <Jason_at_Intel> ok later all 18:08:37 <bdbaddog> l8r 18:09:01 * garyo has quit (Quit: Leaving.) 18:09:14 * Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458])
Clone this wiki locally
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.