Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

BoD log - 11/2/05

Expand Messages
  • Paul W. King
    Content - Eddy - go Hi jeez, listening to a phone while driving is dangerous enough, reading text off some
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 2, 2005
      <kingpaul> Content - Eddy - go
      <[Release]Eric> Hi
      <[Content_SB]mosat> jeez, listening to a phone while driving is dangerous
      enough, reading text off some handheld is not good :-)
      <[Content_SB]mosat> K
      <[Content_SB]mosat> Docs
      <[Content_SB]mosat> things are hopping
      <[Content_SB]mosat> Kar is working on some doc bugs and Frank is
      contributing to the new help section for Modern
      <[Content_SB]mosat> I'm trying to keep up with all the goodies Aaron is
      putting in :-)
      <[Content_SB]mosat> OS: nothing new to report this week
      <[Content_SB]mosat> Data
      <[Content_SB]mosat> we're gearing up for alot of QA and data clean up
      <[Content_SB]mosat> the new Default Monster kits are just fantastic for
      trouble shooting the monsters
      <[Release]Eric> Anything outstanding for data in 5.8.1 ?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> Frank has a minor tweak to add but otherwise we are done
      <[Release]Eric> K, let me know if I need to add something to the data
      release notes
      <[Content_SB]mosat> and I have an OGL question regarding that
      <kingpaul> what's the question Eddy?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> the MSRD has some monsters with SLA's which reference
      spells not in the msrd
      <[Content_SB]mosat> they are in the RSRD
      <[Content_SB]mosat> is there any reason we can't import them for use as
      <[Content_SB]mosat> ?
      <kingpaul> i see no problem with that
      <[Content_SB]mosat> OK part 2
      <kingpaul> in fact, i think that's how i did some of the menace monsters
      <[Content_SB]mosat> if we do import them do we need to append the entire
      copyright tags from the RSRD onto the MSRD?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> stumped eh?
      <kingpaul> sorry, had other conversations going
      <[Content_SB]mosat> what! who's more important than me? ;-)
      <kingpaul> by including some RSRD stuff, we should include the
      non-duplicated S15 info over
      <kingpaul> so, the OGL reference doesn't need duplicated, but the RSRD and
      PCGen RSRD does need to be there
      <[Content_SB]mosat> huh? what is non-duplicated S15 info?
      <kingpaul> the RSRD has the OGL in its S15, as does the MSRD. you don't need
      it in there twice
      * [BD]mertonmonk has joined #pcgen
      <kingpaul> however, since RSRD reference and PCGen RSRD reference aren't in
      the MSRD S15, they need to be there
      <kingpaul> howdy Bryan
      <[BD]mertonmonk> ook- sorry I'm late
      <kingpaul> is that clearer Eddy?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> but it's WotC making the reference, not us, we're just
      following through
      <kingpaul> however, those spells aren't in the MSRD, we have to go to
      another source to actually get information (other than the name) for them
      <kingpaul> because of that, we need to include the RSRD S15 stuff in as well
      <[Content_SB]mosat> what I'm hearing is that to include these spells we need
      to include all the COPYRIGHT tags in the RSRD in the MSRD in addition to it
      <[AFK]Tir-Gwaith> Hi guys
      * [AFK]Tir-Gwaith is now known as [LM]Tir-Gwaith
      <kingpaul> howdy Tir
      <[Release]Eric> Hi Tir
      * [Code_SB]soulcatcher has joined #pcgen
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Ah, BoD meeting. :)
      <kingpaul> not all the COPYRIGHT tags, just those that aren't already in the
      MSRD...in this case, the OGL citation doesn't need duplicated
      <[Content_SB]mosat> out of your car yet Devon?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> ok, I'm no longer driving
      <[TM]Ravagon> Hi all! :)
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> hey
      * [TM]Ravagon wonders how many laws Devon broke by driving! :)
      <kingpaul> howdy Ravagon
      <kingpaul> you clear on that Eddy?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> heh - I logged in at a stoplight
      <[TM]Ravagon> lol
      <[Content_SB]mosat> how is anyone to know which COPYRIGHT tags are directly
      from the source and which were added because we have added stuff?
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> The OGL doesn't care about that, Eddy. Specifically
      designed to NOT care about that
      <kingpaul> what Tir said
      <[BD]mertonmonk> though comments in the file to the effect of "this was
      added because we reference this from that source" might be helpful
      <[BD]mertonmonk> but not required per S15
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> The only COPYRIGHT tags we'd need to update are those in
      the PCCs that actually reference the other sources
      <[BD]mertonmonk> it would just keep it clear for our internal monkeys sake
      <[Content_SB]mosat> sorry, brb
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> As long as we stay clear of declaring compatibility in
      those, right, Bryan
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Declaring Compatibility in a Sec. 15 is one of those Gray
      areas of the OGL debated on the OGF-L
      <kingpaul> in this case, we're just discussing the spells that are listed as
      special abilities in modern creatures, but the spells aren't in the MSRD
      <kingpaul> dipping therefore into the RSRD to get them
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Oh, right. I have that done on my HD, let me see if I can
      find where I put it
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Well, RSRD and SRD, but yeah
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Our PCC that calls it needs all the referenced COPYRIGHT
      info. Since we aren't doing a COMBINED one, then only that particular PCC
      for the extra stuff, and the Complete Modern sets would have that extra
      <[BD]mertonmonk> I wasn't thinking we would display it in the GUI, just a
      #comment in the file so our own monkeys know, in case the need ever arises
      <[Content_SB]mosat> sorry, I have a call I have to take. best move on
      without me
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I am here is you want code to go
      <kingpaul> we'll come back to Eddy then
      <kingpaul> Code - Devon - go
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> lots has been happening in code - and I'm starting to
      think we may want to make a release sometime soon
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> as you all know I want to dump default mosnters from
      the code
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> and having encountered resistance to that
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I then instead propse we try to wrap aup a release
      here soon
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> essentially, all I would want is to a) ensure that
      the kit code is done
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> b) we have worker abilitiy objects
      <[Release]Eric> I rather we do 5.8.1 first and then come back to 5.9.4
      otherwise I won't have mush QA
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> and all the lst tokens have been made loadable via
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> Eric - I mean a new prod release
      <[Release]Eric> You mean 5.10 ?
      * soulcatcher521 has quit IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
      <[Release]Eric> I'll never know I guess...
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> as for 5.8.1 - the lack of a 5.9.4 release is
      starting to negativly affect development
      <[Release]Eric> :-)
      <[Release]Eric> Ho, still there
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> yeah, I was logged in with my phone too
      <[Release]Eric> I saw a "04*** soulcatcher521 has signed off IRC (Read
      error: Operation timed out).01" and thought you were out
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> for while I was driving
      <[Release]Eric> Get 5.8.1 done then :-)
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> anyway, we still ahve a month or so of code for that
      kind of 5.10 release
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I can't do anything on 5.8.1
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> until CMP tells me what is broken
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> 5.8.1 is at a standstill
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> so I *really* want to see a 5.9.1 release here - we
      have to many features that we need to get out the door from 5.9.3, and the
      lack of an alpha is starting to hurt devel
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I mean 5.9.4
      <[Release]Eric> Do we have an ETA or deadline for CMP to come back to us on
      this ?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> no
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> we have zero reported bugs
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> that we intend to fix against 5.8.1
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> but chris says Harp is busted
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> but can't tell us how or if it's even real
      <[Release]Eric> Not sure why, the developers don't use the autobuilds ?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> the develoeprs build on their own box - the
      develoerps don't need a build for themselves
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> a 5.9.4 will get ppl out there banging on it, giving
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> regular builds keep energy high
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> and mean taht other peopel tell them what's wrong
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> the lack of feedback is what he's talking about
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> yes
      <kingpaul> Eric, what's the issue with doing 5.9.4 before 5.8.1 RC2?
      <[Release]Eric> OK, I'll release 5.9.4 this weekend if we don't hear
      anything but I still would like for everyone to complete the release notes.
      Testers have been telling me that without them, they don't know what to
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> great, thanks :)
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> ok, so as for 5.10
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I really want to get these last things nailed down,
      and aim for a quick beta and rc period for 5.10
      <[Release]Eric> Paul, if 5.9.4 goes up with all the goodies, no one will
      test 5.8.1 RCx
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> so long as nothing is broken from 5.8 -> 5.10 and
      Kits, lst plugins and Ability objects work - I want to do the release
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> we havn't heard boo about 5.8.1 wihtout a release
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> except for the cmp bugs
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I suspect we won't hear much one way or antoher until
      it's actually prod
      <[Release]Eric> We've heard some and some corrections were put in but no
      release notes were there to tell ppl what to tests either.
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> waht release notes are we missing?
      <[Release]Eric> Still, if I don't hear from CMP before the weekend, I'll
      release 5.9.4 alpha this weekend.
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I saw the lsit of bugs closed in code show up on the
      BoD lsit
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> ok, thanks
      <[Release]Eric> Code changes, output sheet changes (or a word telling me
      there where none)
      <[Release]Eric> I'll check the BoD list but I thought only data had
      responded to that.
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> wasn't there a list of code changes on the bod lsit?
      <[Release]Eric> I'll check, you posted that ?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> James Dempsy did on the devel list actually
      <[Release]Eric> OK, I'll get them then.
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> in reply to your psot to devel on the release of
      <[Release]Eric> Didn't see it. Sorry
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> np
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> so, any other questions for code?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> and is everyone else ok, with an accelerated 5.10
      <[BD]mertonmonk> I've just asked Rob about Harp - he's calling Chris, so
      hopefully I'll have an answer on whether there's an issue in 5.8.1 shortly
      <kingpaul> i don't have a problem with an accelerated 5.10
      <kingpaul> how quickly do you think that would come out?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> well, if we can finish up ability and lst plugin in
      the next month
      <kingpaul> it may be moot if its rather quickly to do a 5.8.1
      <kingpaul> but that's just me talking
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I would hope for as little as a month beta and rc
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> so that would mean 2 months
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> so roughly end of year
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> beginning of 06
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> this would mean a 5.12 as well before 6.0 - but I
      think there have been enough big, useful changes in pcgen to warrant a
      production release here soon
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Which actually means late Jan, since we lose coders in Dec.
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> depends
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> if we can get lst plugin and ability done earlier
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> we can move to beta earlier
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> I'd like to see that speed change by changing the arrays in
      5.10, personally
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> it's already done in 5.9.4pre
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> kewl
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> Binkeley did it I'm pretty sure
      <kingpaul> i thought i saw comments that the array change was already in
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> between that, the kit thing that makes default
      monsters no longer needed, James' cool ui improvements
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> I prob. missed them. I'll play with an autobuild when I
      get a chance
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> and teh ability to no longer use feats for your
      hidden objects
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> that seems like enough goodies imho
      <[Release]Eric> That means a lot of data changes right ?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> also the improved system folder
      <kingpaul> i agree with you Devon...it does sound like there's enough
      changes to warrant a new stable
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> well, data doesn't *need* to move off of hidden feats
      until the 5.11.x series
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> and the kit thing that eliminates default monsters is
      scripted iirc
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> mostly, yeah
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> but in 5.11.1 I do plan on deprecating VISIBLE in the
      feat file - which should make finding what objects need to move off of feats
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> and early on in 5.11 I would see adding the new
      ability object UI
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> the hope would be that 5.11 would be short too
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I don't want year long releases anymore ;)
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> Tir, is there any problem with removing visible after
      the ability object code is done?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> well, deprecating it
      <[Release]Eric> The reason would be why ?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> because it's no longer needed
      <[Content_SB]mosat> sorry, I'm back
      <[Release]Eric> I mean, why remove functionnality. I can see us no longer
      using it but why remove it ?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> because it complicates the code
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Yeah - We'll want some abilities to never show, even on the
      Ability UI
      <[Release]Eric> Ppl have home made code that probably use this.
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I'm trying to eliminate unneeded things before 6.0
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Otherwise we will have to add funky PRExxx stuff
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> yes, and I plan on supporting what we have in 6.0
      <[Content_SB]mosat> I'm confused, the spec makes use of VISIBLE in abilities
      <[Release]Eric> VISIBLE as tag will stay I think.
      <[Content_SB]mosat> it is extended even by adding PRE tags to it
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> er, each category would ahve a ui or not
      <[Content_SB]mosat> is that not going to be done?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> if it needs not be visible, jsut don't declare a ui
      for that category
      <[BD]mertonmonk> sorry - I've been on the phone, let me know if there's
      anything I missed!
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> take the hidden feats we have for class abilities
      like turning
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> CATEGORY:SpecialQuality - some will be visible, some
      won't. Some will be visible on certain conditions
      <[Content_SB]mosat> thus VISIBLE:x|PRExxx
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> umm, why would there be a UIO allowing people to
      select SpecialQualities?
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> VISIBLE needs that PRExxx expansion to really squeeze the
      most out of it.
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Right, as Eddy said
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> ok, hold on here
      <[Content_SB]mosat> most don't need to be selected, you get them or you
      don't based on your class
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> let's ensure we are all on teh same page
      <[Release]Eric> VISIBLE is also use with only in GUI and only in CSHEET
      which PRExxx tags won't be able to do.
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> VISIBLE doesn't just cover UI - it covers OS as well
      <[Release]Eric> Like Tir said, he did better then me :-)
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> ok
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> let's ensure we are on the same page here
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Native English v. Native FC... :p
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> if somethign is set as CATAGORY:ClassAbility
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> no one would ever see it
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> unless one declared that there would be a UI
      component to display ClassAbility
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> or an OS Section to display ClassAbility
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> there is not going to be a universal Ability screen
      where peopel can see *all* ability objects
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> and the same would be true for the OS
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> if you don't want it to show up
      <[Release]Eric> Well, it would be nice to have the universal for debugging
      at least.
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> just put it in a catagory that isn't displayed
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> does that make sense?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> well, debugging is a different issue, cause we woudl
      want that to show all visibilities as well
      <[Content_SB]mosat> but what about circumstancial situations?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> likw?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> Like Evasion
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> CATEGORY:SpecialAttack - for example, Sneak Attack. I want
      it VISIBLE only under certain conditions - on both UI (the Abiliy pane, or
      whever we are going to have that), and the OS.
      <[Content_SB]mosat> you don't get it when you have armor on
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> how is it done now
      <[Release]Eric> It's not done, we want a better VISIBLE tag :-)
      <[Content_SB]mosat> an SA tag with PRExxx tags
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> cause I'm pretty sure it's not donw with visible
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Via an SA tag check for PRExxx, whcih will be going away
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Since we'll be moving to NAME and DESC
      <[Content_SB]mosat> right
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> right, so wouldn;t you want the core chunk of hte
      ability to be in a non-visible catagory and just have it add a second
      ability from another catagory using prexxx tags?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> we could have an alternate DESC for when the 'off'
      circumstance is in play which would say No, you can't do this now"
      <[Release]Eric> Guys, can we take this off meeting in say the experimental
      list ?
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> In truth, that bit of the Spec hasn't been totally nailed
      down, at least last I checked
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> yeah
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> ok, sure
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> any other questions?
      <[Release]Eric> More ppl would be able to chip in and it's complex enough to
      warrant a good write up.
      <[Release]Eric> I have one
      <[Release]Eric> What is Maven exactly and should I use it to do the release
      <[Release]Eric> The way Greg was describing it, it was a better ANT
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> Maven is a replacement for ant
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> for now, you are fine using ant
      <[Release]Eric> OK, so should I start using that for the release building ?
      <[Release]Eric> K
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> we may switch off ant totally
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> but if we do, we'll inform you before hand
      <[Release]Eric> Also, there is a build_optimized (or something like that)
      target in ANT, what does it do ?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> but the benefit of maven is for a bunch of reports
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> no idea
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> it could be ancient and non-working
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> I'll look at it
      <[Release]Eric> so "ant clean build test" is still the way to go then?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> yes
      <[Release]Eric> Thanks Devon
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> yep
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> anyone else?
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> ok, code done
      <kingpaul> back to you Eddy
      <[Content_SB]mosat> annyone have any questions for me? I've not got more to
      <[BD]mertonmonk> no questions here. did anyone have a question for me that I
      <[Release]Eric> I don't
      <kingpaul> Release - Eric - go
      <[Release]Eric> No mush more to add
      <[Release]Eric> I was sideline last weekend because of birthday, pc problem
      and Civilization IV otherwise, all is good
      <[Release]Eric> Will release either 5.8.1 RC2 or 5.9.4 next weekend
      <kingpaul> next weekend as in 10 or so days, or next weekend as in 3 or so
      <[Release]Eric> I'm still working on prettylst.pl in my spare time.
      <[Release]Eric> The next one, in 3 days.
      <[Release]Eric> Nothing else
      <[Release]Eric> Question?
      <kingpaul> none from me
      <kingpaul> PL
      <kingpaul> i contacted The Game Mechanics and am working with them to see if
      we can get permission from them to distribute datasets for their books
      <kingpaul> are there any other publishers that should be contacted?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> there may be, check the New Source Development trackers,
      I seem to recall there was a new publishers work we havne't done before
      <[Content_SB]mosat> can't recall what though
      <[Content_SB]mosat> [Silverthorne] Kressmer's Bizarre Grimoire
      <[Content_SB]mosat> ?
      <kingpaul> i'll check it out
      <kingpaul> anything else for PL?
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Siverthorne
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> NM, Eddy beat me to it. :)
      <[Content_SB]mosat> that was the only one outstanding
      <kingpaul> k
      <kingpaul> OGL
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> yea, one of my quickie sets
      <[Content_SB]mosat> Frank will be a happy camper if we get the word from the
      Game Mechanics :-)
      <kingpaul> i haven't had a chance to look through the sources on what may
      need OGL clearing (other than the ones that i've done)
      <kingpaul> are there any sources that are in need of OGL clearance?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> I belive there may be a couple
      <[Content_SB]mosat> we've got a few which have been cleared and are ready to
      go into Alpha as well
      <[Content_SB]mosat> I think Malhavoc Press: Book of Iron Might is cleared
      for Alpha, Tir you got that on your plate?
      <[Content_SB]mosat> Oh, Paul, I was wrong about PL, we still need a contact
      for Sword and Sorcery Studios
      <[Content_SB]mosat> haven't heard from them in a good long while
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> I think so. RL has had me pinned, but the new store is
      open now, so I've got some free time here this next week
      <kingpaul> we got clearance from them a while back...that's how we got
      Relics and Rituals in
      <[Content_SB]mosat> right but we have a conversion of that to 3.5
      <kingpaul> they request that any new sets be sent to them prior to
      distribution so they can look at them
      <kingpaul> send it to me and i'll forward it on
      <[Content_SB]mosat> I think it's attached to the tracker
      <[Content_SB]mosat> if not it's at experimental
      <[Content_SB]mosat> Beaver said or former contact is no longer working there
      <[Content_SB]mosat> thus the problem with contacting them
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Ok, I'll ask Ari for a contact email tomorrow. He does
      work for them, and knows who the d20/OGL head is
      <[Content_SB]mosat> cool
      <kingpaul> my contact was an Andrew Bates
      <kingpaul> if its the same person, i can contact them again
      <kingpaul> if not, i'll need a new name :)
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> Yeah, Andrew was the one we talked to at GenCon 2003
      <[LM]Tir-Gwaith> I'll have something this weekend. I'll post to PK and
      Eddy. Kewl?
      <kingpaul> good with me
      <[Content_SB]mosat> yah yah
      <kingpaul> ok
      <kingpaul> Trackers
      <kingpaul> i have nothing to report
      <kingpaul> open discussion (and keep in mind its 10:50)
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> nothing here
      <[Content_SB]mosat> I'm good
      <[BD]mertonmonk> you guys sure have been busy! keep it up! :)
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> woo woo
      <[BD]mertonmonk> crickets chirping....
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> heh
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> looks liek we are done with open discussion
      <kingpaul> in that case, meeting adjourned
      <[BD]mertonmonk> I guess there are no other issues :)
      <[Code_SB]soulcatcher> night all
      <[BD]mertonmonk> nite all!
      <[Release]Eric> nite

      Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.