Back
[01:50:26] <ries_> ries_ is now known as ries
[03:59:49] <CIA-2> EMC: 03mshaver 07master * r1bc116cfbebb 10/configs/smithy/ (24 files):
[03:59:49] <CIA-2> EMC: Reduce axis velocity on 1240 machines for the time being. Consolidate post gui
[03:59:49] <CIA-2> EMC: eztrol files for 1240 and 622 into 5i20eztrol.hal. Add test program for Naiky
[03:59:49] <CIA-2> EMC: pandant. Update 6130 configuration to match the test machine in TN. Add missing
[03:59:49] <CIA-2> EMC: reference to emc.nml in all the .ini files. Remove offset component on 1240
[03:59:50] <CIA-2> EMC: configs and lowpass component on 622 machines and slow the spindle pwm
[03:59:51] <CIA-2> EMC: frerquency to 100Hz.
[04:00:03] <Dave911> Most of you guys are probably smart enough to be asleep at this hour, but I was looking at the current version of Classic Ladder and they mention that they are working on a COMEDI interface for Classic Ladder.. I don't know where they are at with that, but it is food for thought..
[04:15:41] <CIA-2> EMC: 03mshaver 07master * r109965e50495 10/configs/smithy/ (1240eztrol.hal 622eztrol-leadshine.hal 622eztrol.hal): Remove old eztrol related postgui hal files.
[04:21:48] <CIA-2> EMC: 03mshaver 07v2.4_branch * r778793378fb3 10/configs/smithy/ (24 files):
[04:21:48] <CIA-2> EMC: Reduce axis velocity on 1240 machines for the time being. Consolidate post gui
[04:21:48] <CIA-2> EMC: eztrol files for 1240 and 622 into 5i20eztrol.hal. Add test program for Naiky
[04:21:48] <CIA-2> EMC: pandant. Update 6130 configuration to match the test machine in TN. Add missing
[04:21:48] <CIA-2> EMC: reference to emc.nml in all the .ini files. Remove offset component on 1240
[04:21:48] <CIA-2> EMC: configs and lowpass component on 622 machines and slow the spindle pwm
[04:21:49] <CIA-2> EMC: frerquency to 100Hz.
[04:21:59] <CIA-2> EMC: 03mshaver 07v2.4_branch * re40cea095747 10/configs/smithy/ (1240eztrol.hal 622eztrol-leadshine.hal 622eztrol.hal): Remove old eztrol related postgui hal files.
[11:26:57] <alex_joni> yay, finally figured it out
[16:04:49] <jepler> urp, looks like we forgot to get rid of the old joystick component
[16:05:24] <jepler> it never worked (racy hal pin creation vs halcmd) but now it's an outright error and will never successfully run.
[16:06:45] <SWPadnos> ok, I thought that was another problem with that setup
[16:07:12] <SWPadnos> though he said "joypad", not "joystick"
[16:07:33] <SWPadnos> ah, that was only his description, it is the joystick driver
[16:07:42] <jepler> I think joypad.hal is a sample hal file floating around somewhere which uses hal_joystick
[16:08:08] <SWPadnos> yep, seems that way
[16:08:26] <SWPadnos> probably floating in the uploads directory of our wiki
[16:09:52] <jepler> hooray -- the 2.3 docs say hal_joystick was deprecated, so I can just remove it in 2.4.
[16:10:28] <SWPadnos> yeeeehaw
[16:10:56] <SWPadnos> is hal_m5i20 gone yet?
[16:15:47] <jepler> in master, yes.
[16:48:10] <cradek> do we still want tar.gz for releases, or a link to the one from the git server, or none at all?
[16:48:47] <SWPadnos> I think we should have a tarball on the DH server
[16:48:51] <SWPadnos> and/or SF
[16:49:12] <cradek> yay, thanks for volunteering :-)
[16:49:19] <SWPadnos> sure
[16:49:34] <SWPadnos> as soon as I boot up a Linux machine with git on it ;)
[16:55:02] <jepler> use the tarball from the package server area
[16:55:08] <jepler> by all means make a better, more prominent link to it
[18:03:12] <skunkworks> you guys do great work!
[18:13:50] <jepler> skunkworks: thanks
[18:14:36] <alex_joni> I usually put the tar.gz on SF
[18:14:43] <alex_joni> and the announcement on linuxcnc.org and SF
[18:14:52] <alex_joni> I'll do it tomorrow for 2.4.0
[18:16:38] <jepler> alex_joni: thanks
[18:17:42] <alex_joni> sorry I forgot about it, but I'm following chinese advice lately
[18:17:54] <alex_joni> s/advice/curses/
[18:18:01] <alex_joni> "May you live in interesting times"
[18:21:35] <jepler> sorry to hear that
[18:27:43] <CIA-2> EMC: 03jepler 07v2.4_branch * rfa6719b67a83 10/docs/src/gcode/main.lyx: Revert "NURBS is so broken it's not worth documenting"
[18:27:45] <CIA-2> EMC: 03jepler 07v2.4_branch * ra51cf8e1f3a6 10/ (9 files in 5 dirs): remove deprecated hal_input
[18:30:55] <cradek> "NURBS is now barely not broken enough to not document"
[18:34:07] <cradek> (I'm surprised and thrilled it actually worked to revert a doc change)
[18:35:05] <JT-Work> that sure was easy to document murbs again :)
[18:35:26] <JT-Work> burbs, nurbs whatever it is
[18:35:42] <jepler> cradek: I did have to fix up a conflict, and it took a few tries before lyx was happy with the file
[18:35:46] <jepler> but I ultimately prevailed
[18:36:58] <JT-Work> so hal_input needs to be removed from the man pages in 2.4?
[18:37:16] <jepler> JT-Work: I think I got the doc parts as well, but by all means check my work
[18:37:25] <cradek> you mean hal_joystick right?
[18:37:34] <jepler> er, that's what I read him as saying
[18:37:54] <JT-Work> I just saw EMC: jepler v2.4_branch * ra51cf8e1f3a6 / (9 files in 5 dirs): remove deprecated hal_input
[18:38:12] <jepler> argh .. the commit message is wrong (should have been hal_joystick)!
[18:38:19] <jepler> too bad about the immutability of history.
[18:39:03] <JT-Work> it will take a bit for hal_joystick to disappear from the online docs then
[18:39:31] <jepler> what do you mean?
[18:40:08] <JT-Work> doesn't it take a few minutes for changes to appear or disappear from the html docs online
[18:42:25] <jepler> yes
[18:42:38] <jepler> I thought you were suggesting something more than that
[18:42:39] <jepler> like the fact that the wiki won't correct itself
[18:46:22] <CIA-2> EMC: 03mshaver 07master * r0dcc298d4eaa 10/configs/smithy/ (8 files): Fix misnamed flood coolant signal and add mist coolant output to all machines for future use.
[18:48:20] <micges> jepler: hmm I think seb's last fix for hm2 stepgen: da68626985f92 should go to 2.4
[18:49:30] <CIA-2> EMC: 03mshaver 07v2.4_branch * rde8cd2128741 10/configs/smithy/ (8 files): Fix misnamed flood coolant signal and add mist coolant output to all machines for future use.
[18:49:32] <JT-Work> this should work for now on the wiki
http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/emcinfo.pl?Using_A_Joypad_To_Jog_And_Control_Spindle_Speeds
[18:49:54] <JT-Work> I put that at the top of all 5 pages that had hal_joystick in them
[18:50:40] <JT-Work> and hal_joystick is gone now from the online html
[18:50:40] <jepler> micges: you verified that the combination of these two changes fixes the problem, and observed no new problems?
[18:50:43] <jepler> da68626 Don't change hm2 stepgen position when .enable is low
[18:50:46] <jepler> 1f75173 Fix hm2 stepgen.enable=0 behavior
[18:50:59] <JT-Work> * JT-Work goes back to work
[18:52:08] <jepler> (imo the change introduced by da68626 on its own was wrong, which is why I asked for the change seb made in 1f75173)
[18:52:47] <jepler> hi mshaver. can I clarify or expand on what I e-mailed you?
[18:53:02] <jepler> (I'm guessing that's why you appeared, anyway..)
[18:53:42] <mshaver> hold on; i just signed on here to talk to you about using the common emc.nml file thing; wait, I'll read your e-mail...
[18:55:05] <mshaver> oh, cool. i didn't know that you merged changes into master. I thought I had to keep everything straight myself.
[18:55:35] <micges> jepler: hmm, I'll check it on real machine and let us know
[18:55:35] <mshaver> since I'm mainly doing config stuff it's likely to be the same everywhere
[18:56:38] <jepler> mshaver: OK, let's go on to the question about emc.nml then
[18:58:24] <mshaver> while we're talking, back in January you made a commit (07b7e7a1c4f32ecec7077abd2f775a27b1963968) to use the common emc.nml file. In my experience this didn't work (caused an error exit on starting EMC) back in 2.3. Does it work now?
[18:59:21] <jepler> 570792c make it unnecessary to copy the default emc.nml or list it in inifiles
[18:59:30] <jepler> ^^ this commit, which is not in 2.3 but is in 2.4, made it work
[18:59:50] <mshaver> I ask because I put this back in not even knowing about your change. Seriously, I didn't revert you, I actually thought I had made the change and broken things because I too wanted to use the common emc.nml like the manual says...
[19:00:10] <mshaver> OK, I'll take it out then!
[19:00:41] <jepler> test first :)
[19:01:01] <jepler> all I know is, the standard sim configuration, which I use every day, doesn't specify an nmlfile or have a copy in its directory
[19:01:10] <mshaver> In fact, I'll just fix it in the 2.4 branch and let it percolate up from there.
[19:01:12] <jepler> sim/axis and so on
[19:01:16] <jepler> yes, do that!
[19:01:52] <mshaver> Yep, I tested it in 2.3 sim acxis and it didn't work. I'll upgrade my test machine & try it in 2.4 too.
[19:07:59] <CIA-2> EMC: 03mshaver 07v2.4_branch * rdb8da5a7e00c 10/configs/smithy/ (14 files): Use the common emc.nml file rather than a local copy.
[19:37:45] <dgarr> jepler: a minor tkemc patch for consideration
http://www.panix.com/~dgarrett/stuff/0001-remove-execute-permissions-on-files-that-are-not-mea.patch
[19:46:20] <CIA-2> EMC: 03jepler 07v2.4_branch * rc33d8d61a057 10/tcl/scripts/ (balloon.tcl emchelp.tcl): remove inappropriate execute permissions
[19:46:26] <jepler> dgarr: thank you
[19:51:22] <jepler> (huh, turns out approximately 3 widgets out of all the widgets in tkemc have balloon help, and that's not enabled by default anyway!)
[20:08:41] <Dave911> mshaver: Is the Qt based interface that Smithy uses Open source? And if so can I get a copy of it somehow.. I'd like to hack it for other purposes possibly
[20:11:24] <Dave911> dgarr: Thanks for the work on tooledit ... I like it.. :-)
[20:19:39] <Dave911> crap .... looks like mshaver slipped out the back door.... if anyone has any QT based source for the Eztrol, let me know... I don't care if it is current or not.
[20:20:21] <skunkworks> I don't think it is opensource
[20:20:37] <seb_kuzminsky> i think skunkworks is right
[20:20:53] <Dave911> oh... I thought someone said before that it might be..
[20:21:25] <Dave911> or perhaps it was at one time..
[20:21:38] <SWPadnos> parts of it are, but there are some plug-ins that aren't, AFAIK
[20:22:57] <Dave911> How does that work with the GPL license on EMC2? I've read it a few times and honestly I still don't feel like I understand it..
[20:23:25] <SWPadnos> I couldn't tell you, to be honest :)
[20:23:36] <Dave911> Ok ...
[20:23:45] <SWPadnos> I think the deal is that the GUI itself is GPL, due to EMC2 and Qt requirements
[20:24:10] <SWPadnos> part of that is a framework to embed other programs within the GUI though, and those additional programs don't have to be GPL
[20:24:33] <SWPadnos> if I remember correctly, Synergy CAD or CAM is one of the plug-ins
[20:24:48] <cradek> I suggest waiting and asking mshaver
[20:24:59] <SWPadnos> that is the most accurate method
[20:26:48] <Dave911> cradek: I agree regarding eztrol I was also wondering in the bigger picture of things regarding GPL ... other people have asked me about how the GPL works and it isn't entirely clear.
[20:27:00] <jepler> The GPL doesn't forbid GPL and non-GPL programs from operating on the same computer, or communicating through standard communication methods. For example, there's no problem when a Free Software web browser accesses pages from a Proprietary web server, or vice versa. emc's nml is a sort of standard communication method, so if you take care to write a user interface that doesn't actually *incorporate* parts of emc2 (just talks to
[20:27:31] <jepler> (the fact that nml is not as popular as http is irrelevant)
[20:27:52] <Dave911> The way that TIVO did things with hardware seem to come up a lot with GPL
[20:28:17] <Dave911> But isn't adding a class to an existing program adding via a standard "interface" also??
[20:28:32] <Dave911> This gets really hazy to me ...
[20:29:44] <jepler> in emc user interfaces are distinct programs, just like a web server and a web browser are distinct programs even if they run on the same computer.
[20:30:29] <Dave911> I see your point..
[20:30:49] <jepler> it's true that the included interfaces like axis incorporate gpl'd parts of emc2; the way it is structured, axis couldn't be proprietary even if chris and I hadn't chosen from the start to make it GPL'd.
[20:32:36] <Dave911> So how would someone know if a program that was used with a GPL program like EMC2 had violated the GPL if you can't look at the source code for the program?
[20:35:43] <SWPadnos> someone would have to work to find out
[20:36:27] <Dave911> I'm think that might take a lot of work to find out ... am I wrong?
[20:36:34] <jepler> no, you're right
[20:36:58] <SWPadnos> but, with emc2 there are some telltales that are easier to spot - things like strings that exactly match ours, or a program that uses NML directly has most likely included some GPL2 headers
[20:37:01] <Dave911> Just to be clear .. I'm not trying to throw rock here at anyone or anything. I have written a filter program for EMC2 that I just put on a machine. I doubt that it would be very useful for anyone else since it is very specific to the machine it is running on. And if the customer wanted to look at the code he can, it is in Python but I have no idea if leagally the program I wrote should...
[20:37:02] <Dave911> ...be GPL or not or ??
[20:37:20] <SWPadnos> legally you can probably do what you want
[20:37:49] <SWPadnos> if your filter program doesn't actually use features of emc, it's very probably up to you
[20:38:07] <SWPadnos> (ie, if you could run it from the command line on a PC that doesn't have emc installed)
[20:38:19] <SWPadnos> with no emc package dependencies or whatnot
[20:38:50] <SWPadnos> (package in the tcl or python sense of "library code you include in your program")
[20:39:11] <Dave911> Ok. so in this case I guess it could be whatever i wanted since it does not depend on Emc2
[20:39:23] <SWPadnos> probably
[20:39:48] <SWPadnos> incidentally, if you write something for someone else, and it is GPL2, they aren't required to share that code
[20:39:53] <SWPadnos> you just can't prevent them from doing so
[20:40:06] <SWPadnos> it's *their* rights that are protected by the GPL
[20:41:13] <Dave911> Well .. going back to what Jepler said and what I have picked up before ... if you tied a commercial program into a GPL program in depth then your program by default becomes a GPL program ?
[20:41:40] <Dave911> SWPadnos: I haven't read up on GPL2 ... interesting .... it just gets deeper
[20:41:44] <SWPadnos> probably. maybe. yes. no. it depends
[20:41:56] <Dave911> clear as mud .
[20:42:12] <cradek> you should start by carefully reading the entire GPL2. It's only about one page long.
[20:42:14] <SWPadnos> well, you didn't exactly tell me all the details of this hypothetical piece of tied software :)
[20:42:15] <cradek> then, read the GPL2 faq
[20:42:33] <cradek> "tied into" is not a sufficiently precise term
[20:42:38] <Dave911> No I did not..
[20:42:49] <cradek> neither is "use features of" which SWPadnos said earlier
[20:42:57] <SWPadnos> heh. clever, huh
[20:43:03] <SWPadnos> or not ;)
[20:43:26] <SWPadnos> there are (at least) 2 things most people are confused about regarding the GPL
[20:43:31] <Dave911> I read the GPL stuff - pages of it and it never really got into "standard interfaces" as I recall..
[20:43:47] <SWPadnos> one is that it protects the receiver of the software, preserving their right to look at, modify, and distribute the code
[20:44:05] <SWPadnos> second is that it doesn't require anyone to contribute changes back to the authors/project
[20:44:39] <Dave911> ok I got that also ....
[20:45:06] <SWPadnos> so technically, you may write a program that is GPL2, and distribute it to someone (your customer), and everything is fine even if they never share the code or contribute any changes back to the project
[20:45:18] <SWPadnos> you just can't tell them not to
[20:45:43] <SWPadnos> they don't even have to get the code, you just have to make it available to them, and tell them it's available
[20:47:22] <Dave911> So how is that different than a regular GPL?
[20:47:37] <SWPadnos> GPL2 is just a revision of the original GPL
[20:47:43] <SWPadnos> there's also a GPL3 now
[20:47:55] <SWPadnos> as well as some library (or lesser) LGPL versions
[20:48:12] <SWPadnos> you are encouraged to listen to a lawyer instead of me on this subject though :)
[20:48:55] <jepler> I think the problem of burn-in is getting worse on this LCD as it ages
[20:49:01] <jepler> is that crazy to think?
[20:49:08] <SWPadnos> not if it's happening
[20:49:16] <jepler> as recently as a few months ago I thought LCDs didn't burn in at all
[20:49:19] <SWPadnos> how old is the LCD?
[20:49:23] <skunkworks> I have seen burning on lcd pannels.
[20:49:25] <SWPadnos> yeah, they shouldn't
[20:49:35] <jepler> 2005 date code
[20:49:43] <Dave911> NP ... I don't have any killer app coming up that warrants much concern about any of this -- just wondering mostly how GPL code can affect commercial code etc
[20:49:53] <SWPadnos> oh, that big-ish one you brought to Stuart's last year?
[20:50:14] <jepler> SWPadnos: no, the one at the office. Dell-branded 20"(?) 1600x1200.
[20:50:28] <SWPadnos> ah
[20:50:31] <jepler> A DELL 2001FP
[20:50:53] <Dave911> I'll see if I can catch Matt Shaver next time and ask him ... no biggie either way ...
[20:56:24] <alex_joni> jepler:
http://www.fistofblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/freetv.png
[20:56:29] <alex_joni> burn-in example :)
[20:56:39] <Dave911> jepler: >> the way it is structured, axis couldn't be proprietary even if chris and I hadn't chosen from the start to make it GPL'd << I'm curious .... why do you say this . IE what is it that Axis does that pushed it over the edge of possibly being a non GPL app?? BTW I really appreciate all of the work you and the other devs to to push EMC2 forward ...
[20:57:27] <alex_joni> AXIS includes some parts of emc2 which are GPL
[20:57:40] <alex_joni> some NML headers specifically
[20:58:02] <jepler> Dave911: just one example of many: axis requires the 'gcode' module which includes emc/rs274ngc/interp_read.cc which is licensed as GPLv2.
[20:58:51] <jepler> until I made axis not depend on that or any other GPL source file, I can't distribute it under a license that is not GPL compatible
[20:59:16] <Dave911> ok... so doing an literal "include" of GPL code would be a deal breaker
[20:59:45] <jepler> yes.
[20:59:46] <alex_joni> right
[20:59:57] <Dave911> How do the big dogs - Siemens etc - use GPL ed source code in their commericial products and get away with it ..?
[21:00:02] <alex_joni> and since it was released there are other contributors to the code
[21:00:16] <alex_joni> to change the license would imply getting concent from all of them
[21:00:31] <alex_joni> or remove all the contributed code from said contributors
[21:00:47] <alex_joni> Dave911: sometimes by not "linking" things
[21:01:08] <alex_joni> for example it's ok to have a GPL program connected to a pipe to a non-GPL program
[21:01:20] <Dave911> So they are piping info from one program to the next ??
[21:01:26] <alex_joni> that can work
[21:01:34] <alex_joni> or write/read from files
[21:01:40] <Dave911> OK .. didn't think of that ..
[21:02:00] <alex_joni> or writing a GPL interface which gets linked with the GPL code, but doesn't get linked to the proprietary
[21:02:09] <alex_joni> rather it uses some communication protocol
[21:02:18] <alex_joni> there are probably lots of ways around it
[21:02:22] <Dave911> That is a lot more latitude than I thought was possible
[21:02:24] <jepler> There are two main ways companies can use GPL software. One is by using it only internally. for instance, many companies use the gpl'd 'gcc' compiler to build their commercial software. gcc is deliberately structured so that the programs it compiles do not become "contamined" by the GPL for that reason alone.
[21:03:07] <jepler> The second is by shipping GPL'd software to their customers and honoring the GPL requirements for access to the source code.
[21:04:05] <Dave911> so you could create a protocol (plug in perhaps) in the GPL code which would be useless for anyone else, and then plug in your commercial code via the standard interface?
[21:04:54] <Dave911> >> GPL'd software to their customers and honoring the GPL requirements for access to the source code. I've seen Siemens do this quite a bit, but it is not at all clear what exactly they used or what is GPLed but they offer to supply the source.. :-)
[21:04:55] <jepler> I'd say it was a risky business plan at best.
[21:05:22] <alex_joni> they don't need to send the source along with the product
[21:05:41] <alex_joni> they only have to make it available on request, even by snail-mail if not download
[21:05:41] <Dave911> I think I saw that mentioned with the TIVO discussion on a GPL forum or something ...
[21:06:01] <alex_joni> the third way companies are using GPL code is by infringing the GPL
[21:06:14] <alex_joni> sometimes they use GPL code, and "forget" to mention it
[21:06:38] <Dave911> >>even by snail-mail if not download .... don't they only need to do that for customers who actually bought the sw also??
[21:06:38] <alex_joni> there were some example of router hardware with GPL software on it
[21:06:50] <alex_joni> right
[21:07:20] <Dave911> >> third way companies are using GPL code is by infringing the GPL << My guess is that is very common these days
[21:07:47] <jepler> Dave911: GPLv2 3b requries that the written offer of source code be "to give any third party" the source code
[21:07:51] <jepler> not just direct customers
[21:08:53] <Dave911> jepler: Interesting .. so that I believe is a pretty big change compared to GPL v1 ?
[21:09:59] <jepler> I don't know much about the GPL v1. GPL v2 is ver old (1991?), old enough that it is the version Linux itself is licensed under.
[21:10:09] <jepler> s/ver old/very old/
[21:10:18] <Dave911> I think GPL v1 you have to buy the product before you have the right to ask for the source code
[21:10:32] <jepler> I
[21:10:33] <Dave911> Wow.. I might have been reading some old stuff .. geez
[21:10:39] <SWPadnos> you only need to comply with one of sections 3a/3b/3c
[21:11:50] <SWPadnos> but I didn't realize that you have to either provide the code or offer it to anyone (leaving out option 3 for the moment)
[21:12:26] <Dave911> That could be a big deal ....
[21:12:39] <jepler> bbl
[21:13:10] <SWPadnos> practically speaking, it makes no difference. the customer can't be barred from distributing the code to any third parties anyway
[21:13:27] <SWPadnos> and you are allowed to charge your costs in duplicating/shipping the code
[21:15:03] <Dave911> ok
[21:15:34] <Dave911> I would have made really, really poor lawyer ... ;-)
[21:15:41] <SWPadnos> lucky you ;)
[21:15:45] <Dave911> made a
[21:16:04] <Dave911> Well once again I have realized how much stuff I *don't* know .... I'll put it on my list to go pull up the GPL website and review that again .. thanks guys ...! :-)
[21:16:16] <SWPadnos> heh. sure (in case it helped)
[21:16:26] <Dave911> it did :-)
[21:19:41] <SWPadnos> excellent. bbl
[23:45:12] <mshaver> Dave911: My personal opinion is that eztrol is licensed under the GPL because of the terms of use for the Open Source Edition of QT. The specific FAQ is:
http://qt.nokia.com/developer/faqs/182/ .
[23:46:11] <mshaver> But my personal opinion may not be the opinion of the Smithy Company.
[23:48:13] <mshaver> I don't have the latest source code for eztrol as I don't work on it directly. I did have some old source code, but I deleted it from ny machine because I just don't feel comfortable having it.
[23:48:28] <cradek> ouch
[23:49:25] <SWPadnos> yeah. and it doesn't exactly improve your job security if you go asking TrollTech what their opinion is :)
[23:49:32] <mshaver> Technically, since Smithy has "distributed" eztrol to me I could request the source code from them and then give it to you (if it truly is GPL).
[23:49:49] <mshaver> But I'm not going to do that...
[23:50:57] <mshaver> What you could do is find a Smithy customer who has eztrol and ask them to ask Smithy for it and see what happens.
[23:52:25] <mshaver> As Forrest Gump said, "...and that's all I've got to say about that.".
[23:55:35] <SWPadnos> luckily they're near the CNC workshop :)
