IrcLog2008 05 19

16:42:23  *      bdbaddog (n=[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])) has joined #scons 
17:25:45  *      stevenknight (n=[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])) has joined #scons 
17:26:25  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  That's three; where's Gary? 
17:26:39  <stevenknight> i think he said he might be late 
17:26:42  <stevenknight> putting the kids to bed 
17:26:56  <stevenknight> bill, you're not spinning tonight? 
17:27:22  <stevenknight> oh, wait, he's greyed out 
17:27:30  <stevenknight> who's the third? 
17:28:17  *      garyo-home (n=[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])) has joined #scons 
17:28:25  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  You, me, Bill, and there's Gary. 
17:28:34  <stevenknight> hi Gary 
17:28:50  <garyo-home>   hi guys, I'm here for a little, then I'll have to put the kids to bed, then I'll be back. 
17:28:57  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Anybody else here for the bug party? 
17:30:09  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, the official start is here; shall we proceed? 
17:30:16  <stevenknight> let's go 
17:30:24  <stevenknight> starting with current... 
17:30:25  <stevenknight> 2048 
17:30:36  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  In the overlaps? 
17:31:00  <stevenknight> the "Current issues" spreadsheet? 
17:31:33  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  We should do the ones left over from last time first; it overlaps with the current issues 
17:31:49  <stevenknight> okay, point me to the list/spreadsheet you want to work from 
17:32:06  <garyo-home>   I guess that would be editlist2008, w/ 1874 first 
17:32:14  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  yep 
17:32:35  <stevenknight> go ahead, i've scrolled down 
17:32:45  <garyo-home>   ok, 1874: hasn't this been fixed multiple times before? 
17:33:10  *      bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.") 
17:33:12  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Yes 
17:33:14  <garyo-home>   I think I fixed it myself a long time ago. 
17:33:27  <garyo-home>   Should've made a better test case I guess. 
17:33:46  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Bill just left, but he was going to bring it up for discussion on the mailing list 
17:34:03  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  did it ever happen?  I don't remember it. 
17:34:13  <garyo-home>   Don't think so. 
17:34:33  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  And Steven is right that one size does not fit all. 
17:34:59  <garyo-home>   I seem to remember that I fixed it by ignoring "suffixes" that were all numeric, that's probably why ".4g" fails that test. 
17:35:21  <garyo-home>   Does this just have to be configurable? 
17:35:31  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I don't see how 
17:35:30  <stevenknight> I think give it back to Bill and/or recategorize it as a doc issue 
17:35:43  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I like doc issue 
17:35:52  <garyo-home>   there could be a "force suffix" option or something? 
17:36:06  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Hmmm 
17:36:09  <stevenknight> that's File("name-with.odd-suffix") 
17:36:31  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  good point 
17:36:32  <stevenknight> oh, you mean on the Builder 
17:36:46  <garyo-home>   yeah I guess 
17:37:00  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, a doc issue assigned to?? 
17:37:14  <garyo-home>   I don't think it's just doc, is it? 
17:37:35  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  "If you don't like the suffix, use File()" 
17:37:56  <garyo-home>   OK, I could live with that for now, but I'd like a better solution for 2.x 
17:38:15  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I would, too 
17:38:10  <stevenknight> back to Bill to really discuss on the mailing list 
17:38:34  <stevenknight> and/or doc the File() workaround 
17:38:30  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, I'll make it, what, research? 
17:38:37  <stevenknight> yeah, research 
17:38:40  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
17:38:45  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  next? 
17:38:54  <stevenknight> 1883 
17:39:09  <stevenknight> damn, i answered this in the other spreadsheet as well 
17:39:14  <stevenknight> my comment in editlist2008 is off 
17:39:22  <stevenknight> the last time we put it in we did have instaler issues 
17:39:34  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  What's up with Nathan? 
17:39:37  <stevenknight> but it was because distutils changed the location to the script/ subdirectory at the same time 
17:39:45  <stevenknight> I don't think it had anything to do with this App Paths thing 
17:39:58  <stevenknight> ??? 
17:40:01  <stevenknight> oh, GSoC? 
17:40:13  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Yes, we talked about assigning it to him 
17:40:39  <stevenknight> ah, right 
17:40:42  <garyo-home>   1883: what does the patch really do?  I can't see it. 
17:41:20  <stevenknight> it adds an entry to the Windows registry 
17:41:48  <stevenknight> IIRC it ends up making it so you can execute scons.bat w/out having to have the directory in %PATH% 
17:42:17  <stevenknight> Nathan has been sending me status reports, but I've not been giving him adequate attention yet 
17:42:20  <garyo-home>   That would be good; maybe it sets cmd.exe's [AppPath](AppPath) or something I guess 
17:42:22  <stevenknight> so we could definitely assign it to him 
17:42:45  <garyo-home>   I never use scons.bat, but I could do so for testing this. 
17:42:47  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, what's his account? 
17:43:15  <stevenknight> i'll look it up 
17:43:20  <stevenknight> let's move on while i search 
17:43:32  <garyo-home>   1925, then? 
17:43:46  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Add it to the spreadsheet when you find it; I'll take care of it later 
17:44:01  <stevenknight> okay 
17:44:07  <stevenknight> 1925:  research, me 
17:44:24  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done; next? 
17:44:32  <garyo-home>   OK, but not for 1.0 though 
17:44:53  <stevenknight> definitely not 1.0 
17:45:01  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  probably 2.x 
17:45:07  <stevenknight> 1958:  Bill's volunteering, consensus research 
17:45:29  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
17:46:11  <garyo-home>   2000: I say 1.x but not the approach in the patch; should really figure it out. 
17:46:28  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  when? 
17:46:56  <garyo-home>   Low priority, so could be 2.x as far as I care 
17:47:02  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  1.x? or move to 2.x? 
17:47:35  <garyo-home>   I say 2.x because it'll just slow down real work 
17:47:37  <stevenknight> agree w/Gary, 1.x, low priority...  P4? 
17:47:46  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  p5 
17:47:50  <stevenknight> fair enough 
17:47:57  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done; next? 
17:47:59  <stevenknight> do i hear p6? 
17:48:08  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  (no such!) 
17:48:10  <garyo-home>   :-) 
17:48:19  <stevenknight> going once, twice.... sold! 
17:48:43  <garyo-home>   ok, 2001?  (remove max_drift) 
17:48:58  <stevenknight> 2001:  research 
17:49:00  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Narrow use; 2.x 
17:49:08  <garyo-home>   I don't use it, but it was meant to support NFS. 
17:49:26  <stevenknight> i'm inclined to give it back to Ken and let him lead a ML discussion to find out who's actually using it 
17:49:29  <stevenknight> if anyone 
17:49:35  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  And NFS now uses deltas, so it doesn't happen any more. 
17:49:38  <garyo-home>   Actually Greg if it can give a 25% speedup, I say get rid of it sooner 
17:49:50  <stevenknight> speedup++ 
17:50:01  <garyo-home>   1.x, p2? 
17:50:12  *      stevenknight agrees 
17:50:22  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  ok 
17:50:44  <garyo-home>   2003 is weird 
17:50:46  <stevenknight> 2003:  agree w/Greg, wontfix 
17:50:52  <stevenknight> agree w/Gary, weird 
17:51:07  <garyo-home>   wontfix 
17:51:11  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
17:51:37  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  last one? 
17:51:59  <garyo-home>   This will get fixed someday by Greg+Gary tool rewrite, but what about the near term? 
17:52:39  <garyo-home>   We can't use his patch as is, people don't expect CCFLAGS to get clobbered. 
17:53:06  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Maybe it should be set by c-common setup, whatever it's called. 
17:53:34  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  er, no, bad idea 
17:53:53  <stevenknight> hmm, i took a quick look last night and i think his narrow fix of having mingw reset $CCFLAGS solves his specific symptom nicely with little impact 
17:54:02  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  This happens because one compiler is configured and then another configured on top of it 
17:54:15  <stevenknight> agreed that's the larger issue 
17:54:20  <garyo-home>   Right, but what if user sets CCFLAGS and then applies Tool('mingw')? 
17:54:35  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  He gets what he pays for. 
17:54:44  <stevenknight> they're no worse off than lots of other things that get set 
17:54:52  <stevenknight> $CCCOM, $CFLAGS, etc. 
17:54:56  <garyo-home>   Hmm, OK I see your point. 
17:55:10  <stevenknight> all that has to wait until your tool rewrite 
17:55:17  <garyo-home>   OK, 1.x then. 
17:55:21  <stevenknight> but we can make this one situation better in the meantime 
17:55:26  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, what priority? 
17:55:36  <stevenknight> p2 or p3 
17:55:58  <garyo-home>   p3, it's only that one tool in that one case 
17:56:02  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done; on to the next spreadsheet 
17:56:02  <stevenknight> okay 
17:56:24  <stevenknight> Current Issues, right? 
17:56:26  <garyo-home>   I like Ken's patch in 2048 
17:56:44  <stevenknight> gary, you think 1.0? 
17:56:51  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  destab 
17:57:00  <stevenknight> as in 0.98.5? 
17:57:01  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  destableizing 
17:57:06  <stevenknight> right, i'm worried abou stability on it 
17:57:12  <garyo-home>   Look at the code; it only does changes that one case.  But 1.x is fine w/ me. 
17:57:16  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  (ok, I still can't spell) 
17:58:02  <garyo-home>   1953, my current bete noire... 
17:58:03  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  1.x, what priority? 
17:58:05  <stevenknight> 1.x, give it to me for integration 
17:58:20  <garyo-home>   2048: p3? 
17:58:24  <stevenknight> p2, i agree that the patch is nice (modulo stability) 
17:58:32  <garyo-home>   ok, p2 
17:58:36  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2048, ok 
17:59:13  <garyo-home>   Can we put 1953 in 1.0? 
17:59:35  <garyo-home>   At least to see if that fixes the problem? 
17:59:37  <stevenknight> that code looks safe enough to me 
17:59:52  <stevenknight> and there needs to be a 0.98.5 for other reasons anyway 
17:59:55  <stevenknight> 1.0, p2 
17:59:55  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  it was off the top of my head; don't take it literally 
18:00:07  <stevenknight> right, but it's clear a problem 
18:00:24  <stevenknight> and you point to the right sort of solution, even if the code ends up a little different 
18:00:26  <garyo-home>   and it *has* to be a threading thing because otherwise that error could not occur 
18:00:28  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  it still leaves the race, it just covers up the symptoms 
18:00:36  <garyo-home>   Greg: that is true. 
18:01:05  <stevenknight> an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance...  ;-) 
18:01:33  <garyo-home>   I'll be back in a bit -- at least you're at the part of the spreadsheet where I did my homework now :-) 
18:01:34  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Gary, have you tried it? 
18:02:21  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Why don't we assign it to you for research; if it seems to kill the problem, we'll try it for 1.0 
18:02:30  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  And he's gone.... 
18:02:37  <stevenknight> yeah 
18:02:40  <stevenknight> research, me 
18:03:00  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, I'm sure Gary will be willing to test it 
18:03:11  <stevenknight> agree about the underlying race for [NodeInfo](NodeInfo) still being there; I'll add comments to that effect 
18:03:24  <stevenknight> in get_ninfo(), not just here 
18:03:39  <stevenknight> and/or in [NodeInfo](NodeInfo).<ins>init</ins>() or some such 
18:03:48  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  works for me 
18:03:59  <stevenknight> okay, looks like we covered the next set of overlaps 
18:04:03  <stevenknight> 1874, 1883 
18:04:05  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  skipping the overlaps to 1967? 
18:04:27  <stevenknight> right 1967 
18:04:30  <stevenknight> consensus future 
18:04:37  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
18:04:40  <stevenknight> do we need an assigee? 
18:05:03  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  for that far in the future? no, I don't think so.  what priority? 
18:05:18  <stevenknight> leave it p3 
18:05:24  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done;next? 
18:05:41  <stevenknight> skip 2000, 2001 
18:05:49  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I'll take 2007 
18:05:50  <stevenknight> 2007:  1.x, you 
18:05:53  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
18:06:19  <stevenknight> 2010:  2.x consensus 
18:06:21  <stevenknight> leave unassigned? 
18:06:28  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  yes to both 
18:06:57  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I want to get a keyword for all of these so we can triage them further as a group. 
18:07:06  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  and assign them then 
18:07:05  <stevenknight> good idea 
18:07:18  <stevenknight> 2014:  i'm torn 
18:07:39  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I don't understand why it's needed 
18:08:04  <stevenknight> right now we assume that no one else has corrupted the tree in between runs 
18:08:08  <stevenknight> not unreasonably 
18:08:10  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  either you trust the sig or you don't. 
18:08:51  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  if you don't trust it, always recalc, fine. 
18:09:05  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  but if you're going to try for optimizations, you have to trust it 
18:09:21  <stevenknight> hmm, i do see your point 
18:09:26  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  that's why Decider() has such a range of options 
18:09:31  <stevenknight> this was a bigger problem back when we were using build signatures 
18:09:51  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  but they're going away 
18:10:00  <stevenknight> and we could use signatures from the .sconsign file assuming no file corruption 
18:10:01  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  don't throw good effort after bad 
18:10:40  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Uh, which file corrupted?  .sconign? 
18:11:06  <stevenknight> no, you build 
18:11:28  <stevenknight> then someone corrupts your .obj file (or copies a trojan into it) 
18:11:48  <stevenknight> and we could see the .c file hasn't change, so we don't rebuild the .obj 
18:12:06  <stevenknight> but then *use* that corrupt .obj to link a .exe 
18:12:13  <stevenknight> so this verification would be 
18:12:15  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  The sig wouldn't match, oh, I see, 
18:12:29  <stevenknight> right 
18:12:38  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  The new sig wouldn't match, but the old one could. 
18:12:40  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  hmmm 
18:13:22  <stevenknight> right, it starts to use the .sconsign signatures as a weak bill-of-materials of sorts 
18:14:01  <stevenknight> before you use the built targets from last time, please make sure that you think they really do match what you thought you built 
18:13:49  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  How about a Decider(always-recalc)? 
18:14:17  <stevenknight> something like that 
18:14:34  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I could understand that but I'd do it as a Decider() 
18:14:42  <stevenknight> give it to me, 1.x, p3 
18:14:49  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
18:15:13  <stevenknight> if it fits in Decider I'll do it that way 
18:15:58  <stevenknight> hmm, looks like i'll be able to go beyond 6:30 tonight 
18:16:12  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Keep pushing... 
18:16:16  <stevenknight> we're stuck in traffic 
18:16:32  <stevenknight> likely because of an accident... :-( 
18:17:05  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  (I'll tell you my stuck-in-traffic story some day) 
18:16:36  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2015 
18:17:06  <stevenknight> 1.x, me, p3 
18:17:47  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  ok, getting that scan for the dir source really needs to be fixed 
18:18:46  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2016, consensus 
18:19:22  <stevenknight> yeah, 2.x 
18:19:50  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2020: this isn't tool config, why our plan? 
18:20:31  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  oops, screen update, nevermind 
18:21:03  <stevenknight> sorry, what are we on? 
18:21:08  <stevenknight> 2016 is consensus 2.x, yes? 
18:21:12  <stevenknight> and I have 2018 next 
18:21:52  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Yeah, the spreadsheet is giving me partial screen updates 
18:22:06  <stevenknight> okay 
18:22:33  <stevenknight> i think 2018 is pretty straightforward 
18:22:43  <stevenknight> 1.x seems reasonable 
18:22:45  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I'm pretty sure that blanks are compressed out of all cmd-STR variables 
18:23:12  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  But I've broken the case where I was doing it, so I'm not positive. 
18:23:10  <stevenknight> if you want to confirm that I'll support INVALID 
18:23:24  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  me, research? 
18:23:45  <stevenknight> done 
18:24:15  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2020, you, as specified, done 
18:24:15  <stevenknight> 2020:  me, 1.x, p...2? 
18:24:49  <stevenknight> 2021:  1.x, anyone else's choice of priority 
18:25:07  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  These File/Dir conflicts are new; something started them.  p2 is probbly OK 
18:25:40  <stevenknight> 2021 is actually the --debug=time + --interactive bug, not File/Dir 
18:26:18  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Yeah, I don't type fast enough 
18:26:49  <stevenknight> no problem, just want to make sure we're getting right info on the right bug 
18:27:01  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2021 p2 unless it's not simple, then p3 or p4 
18:27:20  <stevenknight> agreed 
18:27:23  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
18:27:55  <stevenknight> 2022:  agree w/your plan, let David prioritize it relative to his time and other Fortran work 
18:28:04  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2023, you research for dup? 
18:28:37  <stevenknight> yes 
18:28:49  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2022, funny screen updates again, done 
18:29:30  <stevenknight> no problem 
18:29:33  <stevenknight> 2029: 
18:29:46  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  not a lot of yacc users, 2.x? 
18:29:59  <stevenknight> i could go for that 
18:30:13  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  assign to Gary? 
18:30:14  <stevenknight> we can always move it up if there's a groundswell 
18:30:20  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  agreed 
18:30:21  <stevenknight> yes 
18:30:24  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
18:31:00  *      [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel) stays silent for 2036 
18:31:05  <stevenknight> 2036:  consensus 2.x p2 
18:31:19  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
18:31:23  <stevenknight> i completely agree we're way overdue for a better way to do this 
18:31:37  <stevenknight> assign it to either me or you and we can work out a reasonable interface between us 
18:31:45  <stevenknight> i'd be happy to implement, though 
18:32:08  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I don't like DESTDIR; too inflexible, but we can discuss that elsewhere 
18:32:21  <stevenknight> i think you're right 
18:32:29  <stevenknight> 2037:  TASK 
18:32:36  <stevenknight> it's not product code at all 
18:33:03  <stevenknight> let Sohail check it in himself and you (or anyone else) can hack on it as necessary 
18:33:12  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done; I fiddled with it today 
18:33:14  <garyo-home>   hi guys I'm back 
18:33:24  <stevenknight> hey there 
18:33:33  <stevenknight> we're up to 2041 on the "Current issues" spreadsheet 
18:33:38  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  and there's some nice test code in the attachment; Hi, Gary... 
18:33:53  <stevenknight> just in time for you to weigh in on it, it's an intelc.py thing 
18:34:03  <garyo-home>   OK.  yep, that sounds like mine. 
18:34:32  <stevenknight> okay, we got past the traffic slowdown, i think i've got another 5-10 minutes 
18:34:52  <garyo-home>   Don't know if it has to be as complicated as that patch though; I might just add an option so user could specify if needed. 
18:35:03  <stevenknight> 2041:  assign to gary, 1.x, p...3? 
18:35:05  <garyo-home>   Anyway assign it to me, 1.x, p2 or p3 
18:35:11  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  p3 
18:35:24  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done 
18:35:46  <stevenknight> skip next (OVERLAP) 
18:35:47  <stevenknight> 2043 
18:35:50  <garyo-home>   2043 seems like a side project to me 
18:35:56  <stevenknight> 2.x, p4 
18:36:01  <stevenknight> we have plenty of real work to do 
18:36:05  <garyo-home>   OK, 2.x p4 
18:36:21  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  done; when shall we three meet again? 
18:36:25  <stevenknight> if they want to actually do the work i'd be okay with it going in earlier, too 
18:36:36  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  in lightning, thunder, or in rain? 
18:36:38  <stevenknight> 2044: 
18:36:45  <stevenknight> 1.x, p2 (if not p1)? 
18:36:48  <garyo-home>   Yes, 2044 should be 1.x or earlier 
18:36:54  <stevenknight> i'd say 1.0 but it's potentially destabilizing 
18:36:54  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  uh, that was a left parenthesis... 
18:36:57  <garyo-home>   UNC paths are important 
18:37:20  <stevenknight> if you want we could make it 1.0 and i could take a look at how bad it would be 
18:37:36  <stevenknight> i can always decide to push it back 
18:37:42  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  research?  I don't want to commit to 1.0 
18:37:58  <garyo-home>   I can run it here too.  Let's just look at the code carefully before putting it in 1.0. 
18:38:06  <stevenknight> i'd prefere 1.x over research to make sure it stays on more visible lists 
18:38:17  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  1.x p1? 
18:38:19  <stevenknight> research suggests "back burner" to me w.r.t. actually allocating time 
18:38:19  <garyo-home>   Yes, don't make it research 
18:38:24  <stevenknight> yeah, 1.x p1 
18:38:33  <garyo-home>   OK w/ that 
18:38:39  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  No, research means "figure this out and assign it to a milestone" 
18:39:05  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Can we meet again tomorrow briefly if we don't finish today? 
18:39:05  <garyo-home>   Greg: technically you're right but we're close to 1.0 now so there's not much research time left 
18:39:09  <stevenknight> i agree conceptually, but in practice I deal with 1.0 before research 
18:39:28  <garyo-home>   Yes, I can do tomorrow night for a little while.  I'll finish the spreadsheet too. 
18:39:48  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Just for this spreadsheet 
18:40:00  <stevenknight> 2046:  consensus 1.x p4 
18:40:03  <stevenknight> i can do tomorrow 
18:40:05  <garyo-home>   right, that's the last bit: 2046 to the end 
18:40:27  <stevenknight> okay, last few minutes for me 
18:40:36  <stevenknight> tomorrow night:  17:00 or 17:30? 
18:40:52  <garyo-home>   17:00 is better for me I think 
18:40:58  <stevenknight> that's fine for me 
18:41:00  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  either is fine by me 
18:41:04  <stevenknight> 17:00 
18:41:09  <garyo-home>   ok, done, see you then 
18:41:13  <stevenknight> sounds good 
18:41:15  <stevenknight> many thanks 
18:41:24  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  17h00 to use the standard, such as it is... 
18:41:34  <stevenknight> 17h00...  :-) 
18:41:38  <garyo-home>   right. 
18:41:39  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  2047? 
18:41:57  <garyo-home>   That's the one that a user was complaining about, right? 
18:42:09  <garyo-home>   How about warning instead of erroring? 
18:42:11  <stevenknight> yeah 
18:42:29  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  I'll buy a warning 
18:42:36  <stevenknight> 1.0? 
18:42:42  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  hmmm 
18:43:02  <garyo-home>   As long as adding the warning and keeping going is easy, then 1.0, else 1.x. 
18:43:05  <stevenknight> i'm more comfortable with 1.x, but this is pretty annoying 
18:43:26  <stevenknight> me, 1.0, p2 
18:43:32  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  1.x p1; if he finishes early, we can reconsider 
18:43:33  <garyo-home>   Put it in for 1.0 but if it gets tricky then reschedule for 1.x 
18:43:36  <stevenknight> if it looks risky i'll push it out 
18:43:44  <stevenknight> agreed 
18:43:53  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  which? 
18:43:59  <stevenknight> coming up to the bus stop, catch you guys tomorrow 
18:44:01  <stevenknight> 1.0 
18:44:13  <garyo-home>   ok, have a good night Steven! 
18:44:17  <stevenknight> 2047:  1.0, p2 
18:44:18  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  Let's pick up here; cul 
18:44:18  <stevenknight> l8r 
18:44:22  *      stevenknight has quit ("Leaving") 
18:44:24  <garyo-home>   (pun not intended) 
18:44:47  <garyo-home>   ok Greg, I'll see you tomorrow as well. 
18:44:54  <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)>  OK, cul 
18:45:02  <garyo-home>   bye