2007/04/03
IRC [01:42] *** cacrus joined the chat.
IRC [02:55] *** jim parted the chat.
IRC [05:20] *** holycow joined the chat.
IRC [05:54] *** partymola_ joined the chat.
IRC [06:07] *** partymola parted the chat.
IRC [06:10] *** partymola__ joined the chat.
IRC [06:22] *** holycow parted the chat.
IRC [06:39] *** partymola_ parted the chat.
IRC [06:47] *** holycow joined the chat.
IRC [06:59] *** partymola__ parted the chat.
IRC [07:00] *** partymola joined the chat.
IRC [08:54] *** partymola parted the chat.
IRC [08:54] *** partymola joined the chat.
IRC [09:58] *** cacrus parted the chat.
IRC [14:15] *** holycow parted the chat.
IRC [14:16] *** holycow joined the chat.
IRC [14:20] *** holycow parted the chat.
IRC [15:28] *** jim joined the chat.
IRC [15:28] <jim> hi
IRC [15:34] <Dossy> Morning, Jim.,
IRC [15:34] <Dossy> Jim, do you blog anywhere?
IRC [16:01] *** holycow joined the chat.
IRC [16:30] <jim> no sure don't
IRC [16:30] <jim> heya dossy, holycow
IRC [16:31] <Dossy> ok.
IRC [16:32] <jim> did you get that thing I posted the other day about the newer gcc and includes?
IRC [16:35] <Dossy> umm, no?
IRC [16:35] <Dossy> or, not sure anyway
IRC [16:35] <Dossy> what was it about?
IRC [16:35] <jim> one sec
IRC [16:37] <jim> something about each .c file having to #include all headers it uses (guessing to the right of that) even if headers do some #including
IRC [16:38] <jim> one sec, I'll get you the thing I read
IRC [16:43] <jim> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=417081
IRC [16:44] <jim> hmm, maybe that's irrelevent to aolserver if latter doesn't use c++
IRC [16:45] <Dossy> yeah, no C++ in modern AOLserver
IRC [16:45] <Dossy> at least, not in the core
IRC [16:46] <jim> perhaps even so, you can still include from includes
IRC [16:46] <Dossy> uh, yes.
IRC [16:47] <Dossy> gcc had better not break that feature.
IRC [16:50] <holycow> hey jim
IRC [16:51] * jim continues running around like headless chicken...
IRC [16:58] <jim> holycow: are you still using the app we built?
IRC [16:59] <holycow> jim, not any longer, they changed the requirements, so no need to track those details any longer
IRC [17:00] <holycow> i may need you to help me move the data to 5.3 even without moving the app over
IRC [17:01] <jim> ok
IRC [17:01] <jim> any idea when?
IRC [17:02] <jim> it's already running on 5.2 tho, right?
IRC [17:03] * jim does not have the wetware space to remember that stuff :)
IRC [17:03] <holycow> lol
IRC [17:03] <holycow> 5.2 yeah
IRC [17:03] <holycow> no idea, at least two weeks, i have a trip soon
IRC [17:05] <jim> it should be easy... we can go ahead and move the app across anyway, keep reminding me, and I need to know specifically what all the requirements are, both in terms of what you need stored and what you want displayed
IRC [17:05] <holycow> no biggie i'll give it a shot my self and see where i get stuck
IRC [17:05] <jim> ok
IRC [17:06] <jim> what we might find out, is the app just runs in 5.3 without any changes
IRC [17:06] <holycow> heh
IRC [17:06] <holycow> probably
IRC [17:08] <jim> I believe the last few refactorings left us with an app that doesn't specifically need bugtracker
IRC [17:08] <jim> but
IRC [17:10] <jim> if there is data that "goes across" both apps, then the data move will have to consider that aspect, and either store the bugtracker info in a sort of "normalzed" table or else we have to also move the bugtracker data (and this might involve object-id mapping tables)
IRC [17:11] <jim> worst case:
IRC [17:11] <jim> - bugtracker data must be moved
IRC [17:12] <holycow> yeah i can't remember if any of the data touches the bt stuff... from what i remember no
IRC [17:12] <jim> - some object IDs in use within new openacs instance in use already (so requires mapping table YES)
IRC [17:12] <jim> - bugtracker data model altered/fixed
IRC [17:13] <jim> that would require some work
IRC [20:03] *** jim parted the chat.
IRC [20:08] *** holycow parted the chat.