IrcLog2008 12 17

17:29:34 * sgk_ (n=stevenkn@67.218.110.27) has joined #scons 17:31:20 <sgk_> hey greg 17:31:39 <Greg_Noel> Hi, Steven. 17:32:55 <sgk_> wiki down in general, or is it just me? 17:33:20 <Greg_Noel> Not just you. 17:33:21 I noticed that too 17:33:45 <sgk_> damn, i've grown dependent on the links in the BugParty page 17:34:19 <Greg_Noel> I can post some... 17:34:27 <sgk_> thanks, that'd help 17:34:37 <sgk_> i've had no chance to pre-review, unfortunately... :-( 17:35:17 <sgk_> is there anything i can/should look at over at pair.com w.r.t. trying to resurrect the wiki? 17:35:34 <sgk_> (says the complete novice...) 17:35:51 <Greg_Noel> Dunno. I was wondering if Gary did something. 17:36:07 <Greg_Noel> (The spreadsheet is http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p1VsJ6ACdIhAs91YGwSnBYw&hl=en) 17:37:02 <Greg_Noel> Sohail, you here for the bug party? 17:37:33 <sgk_> Greg_Noel: thanks, starting in 17:40:24 <sgk_> 1910: me, research 17:40:27 <sgk_> figure out if it's a real bug 17:40:31 <Greg_Noel> concur 17:40:48 <sgk_> (yeah, I know, we don't quite have a quorum, but what the hey...) 17:41:00 Greg_Noel, no, just hanging out sorry 17:41:14 <Greg_Noel> (Maybe Gary will show up eventually) 17:41:39 <Greg_Noel> sohail, if you have an opinion, don't hesitate to speak up. 17:42:21 Greg_Noel, will do 17:43:31 <sgk_> 2249: weird weird weird 17:43:36 <sgk_> needs some research 17:43:47 <Greg_Noel> yeah, for sure 17:43:47 <sgk_> smells like a possible drive letter issue to me 17:43:47 <Greg_Noel> I hadn't thought of drive letters. 17:44:41 <sgk_> put my name on 2249 too 17:44:52 <sgk_> i'm actually buried in other Windows stuff now anyway 17:44:55 <Greg_Noel> ok, done. I'm glad it's not me! 17:45:40 <sgk_> :-) 17:46:05 * sgk_ curses the network lag on the shuttle... 17:48:10 <sgk_> 2084: looks to me like a future thing (2.x or later) and not terribly high priority 17:48:18 <sgk_> David has a workaround for his situation 17:48:25 <sgk_> and no one else has been beating down the doors for it 17:48:55 <Greg_Noel> Priority? 17:49:54 <sgk_> p4 works for me 17:49:57 <Greg_Noel> 2084, future, draft pick, p4, done 17:50:36 <sgk_> 2190: would this be easy to drop into the current framework? 17:51:35 <Greg_Noel> No worse than many others. Is the short-term tradeoff worth the time we could spend on a replacement? 17:51:54 <Greg_Noel> And there are workarounds. 17:51:55 <sgk_> yeah, probably not 17:52:13 <sgk_> future, mark it with some keyword for Configure replacement 17:52:21 <Greg_Noel> works for me 17:52:29 <sgk_> i.e., agree w/Greg :-) 17:52:55 <Greg_Noel> Any ideas for a keyword? 17:53:10 <sgk_> configure ? 17:53:49 <Greg_Noel> I'd rather not; too vague; could be something for existing configure. 17:53:59 <sgk_> good point 17:54:18 <Greg_Noel> Oh, and a priority is needed 17:54:34 <sgk_> p4 since there are workarounds 17:54:38 <sgk_> or p3 17:54:08 <sgk_> configure_revamp ? 17:55:00 <Greg_Noel> Longish. I'd go for something like ConfigNG first. 17:55:34 <Greg_Noel> p3 works for me for now. I'd like to see it sooner, but there's so much to do. 17:55:57 <sgk_> right 17:56:38 <sgk_> 2190: future, p3, +configure_revamp Keyword 17:56:46 <Greg_Noel> done 17:57:08 <sgk_> 2196: agree with both Russel and you in principle 17:57:16 <sgk_> but it's a big architectural change 17:57:30 <Greg_Noel> Yeah, that's why I think future. 17:57:37 <sgk_> agree w/future 17:58:12 <Greg_Noel> On the other hand, there are some features in Python 2.2 that may help, so I could be convinced otherwise. 17:58:00 <sgk_> I'm working in the background on a list of big architectural changes to tackle in 2009 17:58:12 <sgk_> e.g. DAG with real edge objects 17:58:27 <Greg_Noel> Hmm... 17:58:57 <Greg_Noel> Why would you need the arcs articulated? 17:59:01 <sgk_> i still say future, with the intent of discussing it at a prioritization session for big architecture work 17:59:14 <Greg_Noel> so, needs a keyword 17:59:22 <sgk_> right 17:59:37 <sgk_> "architecture" or "arch_revamp" ? 17:59:48 <Greg_Noel> rearchitecture? 17:59:53 <sgk_> +1 18:00:15 <Greg_Noel> so future, p2, done 18:00:20 <sgk_> done 18:00:23 <sgk_> re: DAG edges 18:00:41 <sgk_> one, i've finally caught up with your good advice about being able to do independent topo sorts and the like 18:00:56 <sgk_> more immediate and practically, i'd like to be able to walk the DAG in the other direction 18:01:04 <sgk_> i think that would help developer builds 18:01:30 <sgk_> because you could say "I know foo.c is the only thing that changed, build just its targets" 18:01:37 <Greg_Noel> It's possible to build the transverse graph as you go, but it's slower. 18:01:57 <sgk_> but you'd have to walk it to do so, yes? 18:02:27 <sgk_> maybe i'm naively assuming that separating the edges 18:02:46 <sgk_> would provide benefit from being able to use more sophisticated algorithms 18:03:12 <sgk_> than our current tweaked-into-behaving-kinda-how-we-want walk 18:04:31 <Greg_Noel> I can agree with that, but building the transverse graph is cheap relative to what else you have to do. It's probably not a lot different than building it as you go. 18:05:47 <Greg_Noel> And you still have to be able to create arcs for implicit dependencies, so the targets of foo.h may not be known until you walk up. 18:04:40 <sgk_> okay 18:04:52 <sgk_> gary just fixed the wiki -- deprecation warnings 18:05:00 <sgk_> sent email that he won't be able to make it 18:05:40 <sgk_> onward? 18:05:54 <Greg_Noel> yeah 18:07:06 <sgk_> 2261: 2.x p3 18:07:50 <Greg_Noel> BTW, disclaimer for this evening: We've had almost four inches of rain in the last couple of days, and the local power grid seems to be unstable. We've had three power trips today, all short enough so that the only thing that rebooted was our firewall, but if I suddenly stop, figure that I've lost power. 18:08:14 <sgk_> Greg_Noel: okay, thanks for the heads up 18:08:19 <sgk_> good luck... 18:07:59 <sgk_> mpcomplete is a googler whose initials are "MP" 18:09:33 <Greg_Noel> Tell him he needs to change his name: MP-complete has been demonstrated to be NP-hard. 18:09:51 <sgk_> :-) 18:10:23 <sgk_> 2268: 2.x p3 draft pick 18:10:31 <Greg_Noel> 2261, okay. 18:11:20 <Greg_Noel> 2268, ok, may need to revisit. 18:11:57 <Greg_Noel> Agree that stack trace is not a good thing. 18:12:39 <sgk_> 2269: agree, wontfix 18:12:44 <Greg_Noel> done 18:12:56 <sgk_> probably should document the API if we expect him to reach into the Executor, though 18:13:45 <Greg_Noel> str(Executor) probably gets him what he wants; I'd rather not tie down the API 18:14:31 <sgk_> Greg_Noel: good 18:14:35 <sgk_> i like it 18:14:56 <sgk_> 2270: me, 2.x, VisualStudio keyword 18:15:01 <sgk_> actually, 1.3 18:15:08 <sgk_> i'm integrating vs_revamp 18:15:34 <sgk_> i don't think this part is affected by that, but i'll double check and do the right thing 18:15:49 <Greg_Noel> ok, more issues for you to resolve. 18:15:55 <sgk_> (or maybe vs_revamp keyword...? whatever's appropriate) 18:16:50 <Greg_Noel> Probably vs_revamp, but I don't know the distinction. 18:17:13 <sgk_> either way 18:17:10 <Greg_Noel> Priority? 18:17:15 <sgk_> p3 18:17:23 <Greg_Noel> done 18:17:56 <sgk_> 2270: me, 1.3, p3 18:18:04 <sgk_> part of integrating again 18:18:15 <sgk_> sorry 18:18:19 <Greg_Noel> good; not me 18:18:20 <sgk_> 2271: me, 1.3, p3 18:18:31 <Greg_Noel> right 18:20:03 <sgk_> 2272: ouch 18:20:18 <Greg_Noel> you got that right. 18:20:29 <sgk_> good analysis 18:20:42 <Greg_Noel> yeah, we should recruit him 18:20:55 <sgk_> good idea 18:21:21 <sgk_> 2.x p3 draft choice 18:21:28 <sgk_> and see if we can sign him up as the draft choice? 18:22:04 <Greg_Noel> ok, with some reference to TaskmasterNG, that may complicate this even further. 18:22:15 <sgk_> right 18:23:00 <sgk_> 2273: 18:23:20 <sgk_> anytime, anyone 18:23:42 <Greg_Noel> anytime only works if there's someone assigned 18:23:56 <sgk_> good point 18:24:06 <Greg_Noel> I think we should put out a RFE 18:24:15 <sgk_> E == editor? 18:24:16 <Greg_Noel> Request For Editor 18:24:16 <sgk_> concur 18:24:46 <sgk_> 2273: anytime, Greg_Noel? 18:25:08 <Greg_Noel> It's DOS, so I'd probably botch it. 18:25:15 <sgk_> okay 18:25:20 <sgk_> 2273: anytime, stevenknight 18:25:47 <Greg_Noel> maybe we should give it to Gary as punishment for not being here. {;-} 18:25:55 <sgk_> i LIKE it... :-) 18:26:17 <Greg_Noel> done 18:26:15 <sgk_> ~5 minutes to bus stop 18:26:40 <Greg_Noel> Too bad; I had some other things I wanted to discuss. 18:26:41 <sgk_> 2274: 1.x p3, see if arve comes up with the patch he mentions 18:27:16 <Greg_Noel> Maybe we should see if Gary&others could handle a special meeting? 18:28:05 <Greg_Noel> 2274, ok 18:28:13 <sgk_> yes re: special meeting 18:28:24 <sgk_> 2275: 2.x p3 stevenknight +VisualStudio keyword 18:28:38 <sgk_> if not part of vs_revamp, part of other stuff I'm working on for Google Chrome 18:28:55 <Greg_Noel> Looks like #ERROR! to me... {;-} 18:29:09 <Greg_Noel> 2275, done 18:29:32 <Greg_Noel> (put a space in front of the plus) 18:29:55 <sgk_> 2276: stevenknight 18:30:01 <sgk_> yeah, i thought i fixed it already 18:30:39 <sgk_> 2277: stevenknight +VisualStudio 18:30:47 <sgk_> last minute or so 18:31:01 <Greg_Noel> 2276, okay, I'll presume you'll close it. 18:32:12 <sgk_> 2276: i'll close 18:31:10 <Greg_Noel> 2277, done 18:32:18 <sgk_> 2278: recruit swig guru 18:32:19 <Greg_Noel> 2278 can wait, but I think I'll contact him and see if he can be recruited. 18:32:25 <sgk_> +1 18:32:47 <sgk_> okay, gotta go 18:32:47 <Greg_Noel> Surprisingly, that's all 18:32:55 <sgk_> many thanks for the work 18:33:01 <Greg_Noel> I'll drop a line about another meeting; cul 18:33:15 <sgk_> l8r 18:33:17 * sgk_ has quit ("Leaving")