00:21:16 <alpounet> donri, i *may* be flying to Sweden soon, you're living there right? if possible we should have a coffee or something, and complain about stepcut being late for the happstack 7 release 00:24:07 <DMcGill> right, next draft done 00:24:27 <DMcGill> I'd like to fill out the Source service and Local hackage sections a little more, but it's far too late now 00:24:41 <DMcGill> lectures tomorrow etc 00:25:15 <alpounet> DMcGill, seems good now, although it would be great if you made it clearer that you'd only (mostly) work on the builder and the dependency tracker 00:25:58 <alpounet> that's not obvious. we just understand that now from the fact that these are the only sections where you gave an outline of your plans for how much time will be spent 00:26:30 <DMcGill> I'll change that tomorrow afternoon. I should be around from 5 until 10 UK time and I really want to get it submitted it tomorrow 00:29:15 <donri> :D 00:30:37 <alpounet> DMcGill, sounds good, i'll be around from 5 to (at most) 7, UK time 00:32:21 <DMcGill> this is taking much longer than I expected, but it's shaping up really nicely :) 00:33:10 <alpounet> yeah, the proposal is waaaay better 00:43:01 <donri> alpounet: you use ghc7.4 too? 00:43:22 <donri> ACTION can't build scoutess on 7.0 00:43:24 <donri> the irony! :D 00:45:08 <alpounet> no, i have it somewhere but i don't USE it for my projects 00:47:06 <donri> ah, stepcut added the deps in cabal 00:48:25 <donri> darcs annotate sure has weird output ^_^ 16:30:19 <stepkut> DMcGill: IMO, we are probably not going to be able to use hsenv, etc, off the shelf, but are going to need to copy the ideas to implement something that does what we need.. though that should only be around 1000 lines 16:36:35 <DMcGill> doesn't sound too bad then, particularly as we'll have the existing programs to see the methods from 16:36:43 <stepkut> exactly 16:36:45 <DMcGill> methods of* 16:36:52 <stepkut> there are 4 different apps that I know of to copy from 16:37:21 <stepkut> the problems I envision related to the fact that the apps are developer oriented and try to change the environment that the developer is working in 16:37:30 <stepkut> and they tend to provide poor isolation 16:37:43 <stepkut> so, you do something like, hsenv switch-to-env-for-some-app 16:37:51 <stepkut> and then ghc, etc, work in the new sandbox 16:38:01 <stepkut> but what if we have parallel builds going on on the same machine? 16:38:42 <stepkut> also, it can be tricky to get them to ignore the developers normal envirnoment -- we want to build in a completely isolated environment that is irrelevant to what the developers normal environment is 16:41:40 <DMcGill> I guess that's where the virtual env part comes in although I don't really know how they'd work 16:42:39 <DMcGill> presumably we can point cabal to specific package versions 16:43:19 <DMcGill> for the dependencies I mean, obviously you could do cabal install package-3.2.1 or whatever 16:56:18 <mekeor> so, Happstack is actually something like Apache+PHP, isn't it? but with the difference that you have to compile it again after having changed it, right? 16:58:18 <stepkut> mekeor: in a sense 17:00:29 <mekeor> okay, nice, thanks :) 18:20:59 <DMcGill> Right, final draft! 18:21:00 <DMcGill> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ulYTXJ8WlZz83-OUXMougEtlEjCLDAlSsfbXxg-Kyfs/edit 18:21:26 <DMcGill> I'll hand it in this afternoon unless anybody has objections 18:21:46 <DMcGill> Thanks for all your help and I look forward to hopefully working with you :) 19:14:10 <DMcGill> stepkut, the final draft is now up 19:14:22 <stepkut> DMcGill: cool! 19:14:36 <DMcGill> there was very little to do last time, this should be it 19:15:26 <stepkut> k 19:21:50 <DMcGill> although of course please let me know if you disagree! 19:31:51 <stepkut> donri: I see haskell-src-exts now supports DoIfThenElse.. is that do to your proding ? 19:35:34 <donri> :) 19:35:42 <donri> i suspect from reddit 19:35:49 <stepkut> ah 19:35:50 <donri> people just happened to be discussing the very same thing 19:36:09 <donri> now just need haskell-src-meta to support new -exts for jmacro 19:36:28 <stepkut> :) 19:36:42 <stepkut> time to send some emails! :) 19:36:45 <donri> which i filed an issue for 19:36:56 <stepkut> nice 19:36:57 <donri> though -meta seems rather active so 19:58:03 <stepkut> nice 20:04:03 <stepkut> DMcGill: looks good! 20:27:52 <stepkut> Lemmih: compared to multimaster replication, how hard would it be to make a 'remote backup client' that just logged events on a different server? 20:49:09 <donri> how is that different from replication 20:49:49 <donri> oh, you mean it'd be one-way 20:51:38 <donri> stepkut: you saw nibro's gsoc proposal? 20:52:31 <donri> all these nice ideas floating around and we have limited slots :( 20:56:29 <stepkut> donri: yup 20:57:01 <stepkut> donri: yeah, replication is two way and has sync issues. With my proposed system, the master should not block if the logger goes down.. 20:57:35 <donri> "better than nothing" 20:58:03 <stepkut> if you have that.. and use the remote API... then you sort of have a master/client system I think 20:58:14 <donri> though somewhat missing the C of ACID, yea? 20:58:29 <stepkut> not sure 20:58:34 <stepkut> this is as far as I have thought 20:58:38 <stepkut> focused on the release mostly 20:58:42 <donri> oh i probably mean the D 20:59:15 <stepkut> that makes less sense.. 20:59:41 <donri> well sounds like you can end up with different logs on master and backup? 20:59:56 <donri> which might still be better than not having any backup at all, but, yea 21:01:20 <donri> or perhaps I mean the "A" ;) in that the master and backup aren't atomic together 21:16:09 <Lemmih> stepkut: Much easier. Nearly trivial. 21:16:49 <Lemmih> stepkut: That's a good idea, actually. 21:18:12 <Lemmih> Yeah, hm. You don't get all the ACID guarantees. 21:18:59 <Lemmih> One could write a best effort state duplicator. 21:19:41 <Lemmih> Hm, don't like that at all, actually. 21:20:02 <Lemmih> Proper replication is the way to go. 21:43:20 <stepkut> :) 21:43:32 <stepkut> better get crackin on your GSoC submission :p 21:50:42 <donri> where do people get the idea that warp and snap is very fast 21:50:49 <donri> that is, they leave out happstack from that listing 21:52:10 <donri> i get 9k+ rqs from happstack on my dev machine. no idea if snap and warp would do more, but, happstack is not "slow" either way? 21:53:27 <stepkut> snap and happstack are around the same speed these days, last I checked 21:53:31 <stepkut> warp is 2-4 times faster 21:53:40 <stepkut> based on the single 'pong' benchmark 21:54:14 <donri> i watched some silk talk and he said they used both happstack and snap, "snap might be a little faster" 21:54:38 <donri> i mean, even if that is true, are they actually experiencing "happstack is too slow"? 21:54:42 <stepkut> no 21:54:50 <donri> what makes it even *worth noting* :P 21:55:16 <stepkut> one of the early snap promotition pieces was a benchmark showing how fast there were.. I think that is how it got started 21:55:21 <mightybyte> Nobody is saying that happstack is slow. 21:55:40 <mightybyte> At least nobody that I know of. 21:56:50 <mightybyte> And in my mind, comparison to warp is not really apples to apples. 21:57:16 <donri> mightybyte: i'm not saying people are saying happstack is slow. they're saying snap and warp are fast. 21:57:40 <donri> what the listener then *hears* is "the others are slow" :P 21:57:57 <stepkut> donri: fear not, Happstack 8 will be fast :) 21:58:04 <donri> and i just find that curious since they're all quite fast 21:58:30 <mightybyte> Well, that's a problem with the listener. 21:59:25 <mightybyte> Beware the ides of March! 22:37:25 <alpounet> DMcGill, proposal looks good!