IrcLog2010 04 27

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
16:35:36  *      Jason_at_Intel (~[chatzilla@](mailto:chatzilla@ has joined #SCONS 
16:54:01  *      garyo (~[]( has joined #SCONS 
16:54:41  *      bdbaddog (~[]( 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 (~[sgk@](mailto:sgk@ 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>       []( 
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 (~[sgk@](mailto:sgk@ 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
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.