IrcLog2010 06 01

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
16:08:25  *      Jason_at_Intel (~[chatzilla@12.18.240.224](mailto:chatzilla@12.18.240.224)) has joined #SCONS 
16:49:47  *      techtonik (~[chatzilla@mm-127-247-57-86.leased.line.mgts.by](mailto:chatzilla@mm-127-247-57-86.leased.line.mgts.by)) has joined #SCONS 
16:51:42  *      bdbaddog (~[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-4-229.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-4-229.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has joined #SCONS 
16:59:43  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away 
16:59:32  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has entered the building... 
17:00:51  <bdbaddog>     Good evening Greg! 
17:02:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hey, all; I don't see Steven, although he said he would make it.  Shall we give him a couple of minutes? 
17:02:14  <bdbaddog>     Sure. 
17:04:39  *      sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-fhtfswcishgntsxo) has joined #SCONS 
17:04:47  <sgk>  yo 
17:04:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     And here he is; shall we get started? 
17:05:16  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:05:19  <sgk>  let's do it 
17:05:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2545 consensus anytime p4 Greg 
17:05:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2627 consensus 2.1 p2 Steven 
17:05:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2628 needs a priority, but otherwise consensus research Steven; how about p3? 
17:05:38  <sgk>  p3 sounds good 
17:05:58  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:06:05  <Jason_at_Intel>       +1 
17:06:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:06:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2630 needs a priority, but otherwise consensus research Steven; how about p2? 
17:06:28  <sgk>  how about 2629? 
17:06:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     oops, yes 2629; getting ahead of myself 
17:06:48  <sgk>  since i took the 2628 (and likely 2630), how about 2629 => garyo? 
17:07:26  <sgk>  seems like he already looked at it, and he can kick it back if it's a problem 
17:07:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me; what priority? 
17:07:48  <sgk>  since it's related to batching, p2 
17:08:42  <sgk>  maybe with a note inviting kicking it to me if it looks too tied to the other batching things 
17:08:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     no other opinion, done 
17:08:43  <sgk>  done 
17:08:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     try 26eo? 
17:08:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2630? 
17:08:55  <sgk>  26eo:  p2 
17:09:04  <sgk>  :-) 
17:09:18  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:09:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:09:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2631 consensus 2.1 p3 Rob 
17:09:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2632 consensus 2.1 p3 Rob 
17:09:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2633 
17:10:03  <sgk>  any barriers to inviting anatoly to update directly? 
17:10:18  *      sgk looks again at the bug itself... 
17:10:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'd like him to pass his changes by a native speaker before he commits, but otherwise no problem for me. 
17:10:55  <sgk>  agreed re: editing 
17:10:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll volunteer to be his editor. 
17:11:01  <sgk>  that could be either you or me 
17:11:04  <sgk>  you 
17:11:06  <sgk>  thnx 
17:11:10  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     or you... 
17:11:16  <sgk>  no backs! 
17:11:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     or even both, depending on who's available. 
17:11:37  <sgk>  both sounds reasonable 
17:12:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll make him a committer and close the issue... hmmm, what status? 
17:12:36  <sgk>  depending on his cycles... 2.0 would be nice...  p2? 
17:12:38  <sgk>  maybe even p1? 
17:12:47  <sgk>  there's a window of opportunity with 2.0 going out the door 
17:13:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll assign him the issue. 
17:13:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2.0 p1 tech<esc> 
17:13:40  <sgk>  done 
17:14:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2634 
17:14:20  <sgk>  garyo, ask for confirmation, close in two weeks if none? 
17:14:37  <Jason_at_Intel>       agreed 
17:15:15  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:15:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I can ask when I post the issues, but I'll assign it to Gary so he'll stay in the loop. 
17:15:55  <sgk>  okay 
17:15:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:15:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2635 
17:16:10  <sgk>  does david cournapeau have any cycles for 2635? 
17:16:27  <sgk>  assign to him, ask for it back if he's still mired in finishing his thesis? 
17:16:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Unfortunately, I have to admit my first language was FORTRAN, but David would be a better choice. 
17:17:17  <sgk>  let's give him a crack at it then 
17:17:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll do that, but if he can't, I'll take it (but not at a high priority).  (I think he won't be done until late June.) 
17:17:37  <sgk>  agreed 
17:17:37  <sgk>  thnx 
17:17:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:18:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2636 
17:18:00  <sgk>  2636:  i'm very much out of the loop on the packaging stuff, will go with consensus 
17:18:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     What happened to the student who wrote it? 
17:18:30  <sgk>  no idea 
17:18:33  <sgk>  was garyo mentor? 
17:19:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm...  Not me, so probably him. 
17:19:16  <sgk>  assign to garyo to follow up with student? 
17:19:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     good idea 
17:19:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     what milestone, priority? 
17:20:02  <sgk>  2.1 p3 ? 
17:20:59  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:21:13  <Jason_at_Intel>       +1 
17:21:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I guess that's OK; he can ask for it to be changed if need be.  2.2 might be better. 
17:21:26  <sgk>  done 
17:21:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:21:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1.3.doc I'd like to declare 2.0.0.beta.20100531 the release candidate and reopen the trunk for 2.1 development.  Since we have no documented flow for cherry-picking changesets from the trunk, I'm reluctant to say that these documentation issues could go in 2.0. 
17:21:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I have a background project to SConsify the current build scheme, so I've been working through the release flow in detail.  It's a mess, but I think I know what the flow should be; I could write up how to do the cherry-picking. 
17:21:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     But no matter what, I think Steven should make the assignments and then get hard-nosed about nagging to see that it gets done.  Otherwise it won't get done in time for 3.0... 
17:22:09  <sgk>  "...see that it gets done..."  it == ? 
17:22:16  <sgk>  the doc issues ? 
17:22:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
17:22:54  <sgk>  (break for shuttle in a few minutes) 
17:23:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The antecedent is "assignments" so it should be "them."  Mea culpa. 
17:23:43  <sgk>  i can do some assigning, but not sure who's in the volunteer pool 
17:24:04  <sgk>  (shuttle coming, biab) 
17:24:06  *      sgk has quit (Quit: sgk) 
17:27:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     techtonik, are you here? 
17:28:00  *      sgk (~[sgk@67.218.102.129](mailto:sgk@67.218.102.129)) has joined #SCONS 
17:28:13  <sgk>  back (i think) 
17:28:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Maybe it would be a good test for techtonik (if you're reading, would you be willing to try?); it's clearly documentation that needs to be done. 
17:28:49  <sgk>  what'd i miss? 
17:29:06  <bdbaddog>     nada 
17:29:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     dead silence... 
17:29:19  <sgk>  heh 
17:29:30  <bdbaddog>     long day IRL 
17:30:33  <sgk>  okay, how about i just take a stab at reassigning the doc issues then 
17:30:36  <sgk>  might be random to start 
17:30:39  <bdbaddog>     so should we change the bootstrap logic to have a beta level ? 
17:30:42  <sgk>  but people can balk and then i can correct 
17:30:54  <bdbaddog>     and/or RC ? 
17:31:12  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  not sure what you mean 
17:31:16  <bdbaddog>     so bootstrap.py CHECKPOINT=beta|RC 
17:31:22  <bdbaddog>     in addition to d,r 
17:31:31  <sgk>  i already changed ".alpha." => to ".beta." in the SConstruct file 
17:31:38  <sgk>  for this last checkpoint 
17:31:50  <sgk>  but i just did it by hand, no configurability 
17:31:40  <bdbaddog>     k 
17:31:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, I'm about to check in something that will fix that, but I'm still testing it. 
17:32:09  <sgk>  cool 
17:32:30  <sgk>  are all of the 1.3.x fixes in the current .beta.20100531 checkpoint? 
17:32:36  <bdbaddog>     nope. 
17:32:45  <bdbaddog>     I need to merge the MSVC stuff over. 
17:33:16  <bdbaddog>     should I do by hand, or would svnmerge be useful for this? though it would be a cherry pick of course. 
17:33:50  <sgk>  svnmerge can cherry pick 
17:33:56  <sgk>  just specify the revisions with -r 
17:34:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I've got a partially-complete wiki page on how to cherry-pick; I can finish it and post it. 
17:34:43  <bdbaddog>     k. that'd be great 
17:34:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yes, it uses svnmerge 
17:35:15  <sgk>  very cool 
17:35:19  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Give me a day or two to finish it and try it out. 
17:35:31  <bdbaddog>     hmm. o.k .was going to give it a wack tonight. 
17:35:44  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  are the 1.3.x changes in the latest checkpoint?  that is, they've gotten air time? 
17:36:01  <bdbaddog>     lateste 1.3 checkpoint yes. 
17:36:14  <bdbaddog>     though there's one bug or email about some initialization issues on vista. 
17:36:41  <sgk>  right, that's the one garyo replied to earlier today, yes? 
17:36:48  <bdbaddog>     yes 
17:37:50  <sgk>  if we take these in 2.0, do we need another checkpoint for them, or do we go with it? 
17:38:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'd rather not have another checkpoint. 
17:38:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     In fact, I'd rather go with the current checkpoint. 
17:39:05  <sgk>  i'm really loathe to ship something that regresses from 1.3.x 
17:39:23  <sgk>  especially in an area like the Windows initialization 
17:39:11  <bdbaddog>     ditto 
17:40:10  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I am, too, but I've promised that 2.0.0 would be out on Flag Day; unless we put out another checkpoint this weekend, there's no way. 
17:39:38  <bdbaddog>     I can do the merge, and push out another checkpoint tonight/tomorrow? 
17:39:44  <Jason_at_Intel>       There seems to be a lot of issues with msvc.. I don't think people want this to get worse 
17:40:12  <Jason_at_Intel>       2.0 should make it better or be the same as 1.3 
17:41:07  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  i like your idea 
17:41:25  <sgk>  garyo is (i think) on vacation this week, any chance someone else can look at the outstanding vista issue? 
17:41:46  <bdbaddog>     sure. I can respond with the guy. 
17:42:50  <sgk>  thnx 
17:43:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, can you assign the doc issues and see how many can be done this week?  See if some can get in the checkpoint?  Maybe delay a checkpoint until Friday or so? 
17:43:11  <sgk>  i'll try to be online tonight, so if there's anything i can help with, le tme know 
17:43:18  <bdbaddog>     will do. 
17:43:42  <bdbaddog>     [GregNoel](GregNoel) - can u point me to your cherry picking page? is it useful though incomplete at this point? 
17:44:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     It's on my home wiki... 
17:45:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I need a day to clean it up, at least; too many notes to self to be useful 
17:45:11  <bdbaddog>     [http://scons.org/wiki/GregNoel](http://scons.org/wiki/GregNoel) 
17:45:14  <bdbaddog>     there? 
17:45:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     [http://localhost:8000/](http://localhost:8000/) 
17:46:38  <bdbaddog>     ahh. yeah.. that's hard to get to from here.. ;) 
17:47:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Only three firewalls to get through... 
17:47:24  <bdbaddog>     oh.. I thought you'd make it a real challenge.. ;) 
17:47:43  <bdbaddog>     Any other items for today? 
17:48:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, will you reassign the doc issues? 
17:48:31  <sgk>  yes 
17:48:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Can you do it tonight? 
17:49:33  <sgk>  i think so 
17:49:41  <sgk>  tomorrow morning otherwise 
17:49:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     If we get them to people tonight, we might get some back for the next checkpoint. 
17:50:52  <sgk>  okay, if we finish here soon i may have time right now 
17:51:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I don't think we have anything else...  And my [TiVo](TiVo) is sick; I need to go troubleshoot it. 
17:52:03  <bdbaddog>     k. sounds good to me. 
17:52:04  <sgk>  anyone have anything else to discuss? 
17:52:17  <Jason_at_Intel>       not here at the moment 
17:52:26  <bdbaddog>     nope. 
17:52:35  <sgk>  all right then, I'll peel off and go scatter some documentation issues to the wind 
17:52:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Looks like we're done, so g'night all... 
17:52:51  <Jason_at_Intel>       bye 
17:52:54  <bdbaddog>     gnight as well 
17:53:00  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has left the building... 
17:53:02  <sgk>  bye 
17:53:03  *      Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]) 
17:53:06  *      sgk (~[sgk@67.218.102.129](mailto:sgk@67.218.102.129)) has left #SCONS 
17:53:14  *      bdbaddog (~[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-4-229.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-4-229.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has left #SCONS 
17:54:18  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away 

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.