[09:00:07] <JohnResig> Welcome everyone!
[09:00:17] <jaubourg> welcome yourself!
[09:00:20] <jaubourg> ;)
[09:00:35] <RTPMatt> hello
[09:00:41] <louisremi> Hi
[09:00:47] <leandroeros> Hi
[09:01:02] <rwaldron> Here :)
[09:01:11] <JohnResig> OK
[09:01:17] <JohnResig> So I have one item on the agenda today
[09:01:27] <JohnResig> I'd like to figure out if we should release 1.6.2 RC today
[09:01:34] <JohnResig> (or very soon)
[09:01:57] <gnarf> hello!
[09:02:19] <jaubourg> can we have a few days to sort through tickets and make sure? I admit I haven't had a lot of time to control all bugs
[09:02:29] <JohnResig> timmywil: thoughts?
[09:03:19] <JohnResig> uhhh, hmm
[09:03:32] <jaubourg> haha
[09:03:34] <JohnResig> it was originally timmywil that suggested doing a 1.6.2 now
[09:03:45] <JohnResig> since we have everything fixed that was marked for 1.6.2
[09:03:58] <timmywil> sry
[09:04:02] <timmywil> keyboard stopped working
[09:04:15] <timmywil> I think we're ready for 1.6.2
[09:04:18] <jaubourg> you were key-mute
[09:04:35] <rwaldron> I have no opposition
[09:04:47] <DaveMethvin> i have been way busy the last few weeks so i can't say much one way or the other ... if all the big bugs are closed then we might as well i guess
[09:04:49] <rwaldron> in fact, I'm noticing duplicates rolling in
[09:04:54] <jaubourg> that's the first I hear about a 1.6.2, could we give it a week just to make sure?
[09:04:56] <rwaldron> that are fixed in 1.6.2
[09:05:11] <JohnResig> jaubourg: well, that's why we'd do an RC today
[09:05:17] <timmywil> rc first yea
[09:05:22] <jaubourg> oh ok
[09:05:31] <DaveMethvin> then ppl will holler if we didn't fix their favorite bug
[09:05:43] <JohnResig> DaveMethvin: and yet the world still turns
[09:05:49] <DaveMethvin> lol
[09:06:00] <jaubourg> go for it then... there's a pipe related bug I'd like to tackle, will I be able to add it or are we locked with the rc
[09:06:04] <jaubourg> I'm never good at this
[09:06:12] <DaveMethvin> well it's not an rc if you go changin it
[09:06:21] <jaubourg> that's what I thought
[09:06:51] <DaveMethvin> maybe you could fix it today and we could rc tomorrow?
[09:07:02] <jaubourg> not sure I'll have the time
[09:07:11] <jaubourg> damn my busy-ness these days
[09:07:12] <JohnResig> jaubourg: it seems like it's pretty low priority? so you could just wait a week to fix it
[09:07:17] <JohnResig> and it could get in 1.6.3
[09:07:39] <jaubourg> yes and no but I get what you mean
[09:07:47] <DaveMethvin> everyone knows .2's are the best
[09:08:30] <jaubourg> if everybody's up for it, then do it obviously
[09:08:31] <JohnResig> heh
[09:08:55] <JohnResig> we've hit a plateau with bugs at the moment, might as well push it out - keep a constant push of minor bug fix releases
[09:09:29] <jaubourg> yeah, I'm just surprised by 1.6.2 being out now... didn't see it coming but I was veeeerry busy :/
[09:09:54] <jaubourg> so it's a +1
[09:10:36] <leandroeros> some release?
[09:10:43] <JohnResig> ok! let me tag it and push it live
[09:10:54] <jaubourg> I mean it's a +0.0.1
[09:11:01] <DaveMethvin> lol jaubourg
[09:11:09] <JohnResig> alright, anything else that we want to discuss?
[09:11:18] <JohnResig> I've been talking with the Closure Compiler  guys
[09:11:24] <JohnResig> to see if we can find a way to use their stuff
[09:11:28] <JohnResig> they're fixing some bugs on their end
[09:11:33] <ben_alman> to what end?
[09:11:34] <JohnResig> which will make it work a lot better
[09:11:39] <timmywil> Anything that we want to get into 1.6.3, please tag the milestone so we don't miss it
[09:11:43] <JohnResig> ben_alman: that people will be able to use the advanced mode with jQuery
[09:11:55] <JohnResig> timmywil: yep!
[09:12:08] <ben_alman> so just like, hey if we can get this to be smaller than uglify then we might switch to it down the road?
[09:12:24] <DaveMethvin> that will be fun b/c it will privatize all our undocumented public functions, yay!
[09:12:38] <jaubourg> lol
[09:13:02] <ben_alman> DaveMethvin, that would be awesome
[09:13:18] <DaveMethvin> at first i thought the externals file was a pita but now i am on board with it
[09:13:29] <timmywil> yum
[09:13:30] <JohnResig> ben_alman: no, that's not what this is for - it's for users to merge their code in with jquery to remove un-used functions
[09:13:30] <cmcnulty> Can someone start tagging QUnity when jquery is tagged?  Can be frustrating when newest QUnit won't work with older unit tests in jquery.
[09:13:54] <JohnResig> cmcnulty: no need - we use submodules now and that takes care of that
[09:13:59] <ben_alman> JohnResig, so just removing dead code?
[09:14:05] <JohnResig> ben_alman: "just" yes :)
[09:14:11] <ben_alman> cool
[09:14:11] <cmcnulty> gotcha, thanks
[09:14:20] <JohnResig> it'll be huge - if you don't use animate, all animation code will be stripped
[09:14:23] <JohnResig> automagically!
[09:14:24] <ben_alman> though i do like the idea of munging private apis
[09:14:48] <DaveMethvin> although you won't be using the cdn versions in that case
[09:14:55] <DaveMethvin> so you'll have to deliver your own bitz
[09:14:57] <JohnResig> DaveMethvin: yeah, that's already a given
[09:15:10] <JohnResig> we won't have to write any sort of build system for jQuery and this will be a viable option for those that want to go this route
[09:15:16] <DaveMethvin> i like freeloading off google :)
[09:15:29] <DaveMethvin> i agree tho it will take some pressure off us on that poitn
[09:15:32] <DaveMethvin> point*
[09:15:32] <ben_alman> yeah
[09:15:36] <ben_alman> that'd be great
[09:15:39] <jaubourg> yep
[09:15:57] <ben_alman> maybe the closure guys will see something in jquery too that could be organized better as well
[09:16:03] <ben_alman> never know
[09:16:05] <kswedberg> yeah, so it's "modular jQuery" without silly modules. :)
[09:16:06] <DaveMethvin> WHAT!
[09:16:10] * ben_alman hides
[09:16:15] <mknwebsolutions> test
[09:16:25] <JohnResig> ben_alman: so far that hasn't been that case, it's mostly been issues with their engine
[09:16:33] <ben_alman> JohnResig, oh, i'm sure
[09:16:35] <ben_alman> but you never know
[09:16:53] <mknwebsolutions> I've got a quick question to the jquery team
[09:17:11] <mknwebsolutions> What happens if two jquery link attachments exists on a site?
[09:17:11] <timmywil> JohnResig: will we need to add all the closure comments?
[09:17:19] <JohnResig> timmywil: probably, yes
[09:17:34] <timmywil> i could probably do a lot of that
[09:17:40] <DaveMethvin> mknwebsolutions: not sure what you're asking , you might want to start on #jquery
[09:17:55] <JohnResig> timmywil: I suspect that the Closure guys may just do it for us :)
[09:18:05] <timmywil> JohnResig: nice!
[09:18:06] <mknwebsolutions> DaveMethvin: Thx, will do
[09:18:07] <DaveMethvin> that would be handy
[09:18:19] <DaveMethvin> if they get us started i am sure we can tweak for each release
[09:18:34] <jaubourg> John: do you know if there's a way to tag some piece of code in comments? Like transport code so that people could say "no jsonp" when building?
[09:19:20] <JohnResig> jaubourg: I suspect that it'll make it so that if jsonp isn't used it'll get stripped - we may have to do some light code-re-org to make that completely possible, but we'll have to see
[09:19:26] <v1r0x3r> hello
[09:19:46] <el_guiye> hola
[09:19:46] <jaubourg> John: I don't see how closure can control this
[09:20:00] <DaveMethvin> it'll be interesting to see how much it can do there
[09:20:01] <v1r0x3r> hola
[09:20:10] <JohnResig> DaveMethvin: yeah, agreed - and what we can do to make it even better
[09:20:16] <jaubourg> the transport is attached in a structure which is then searched using the dataType option
[09:20:26] <DaveMethvin> i agree that it would be tough for closure to know some of this but if there is a way to "guide" it ...
[09:20:37] <DaveMethvin> who knows maybe we could knock out specific transports etc
[09:20:47] <jaubourg> that would be neat
[09:20:51] <JohnResig> yep!
[09:21:09] <jaubourg> but I don't see how a static analysys can do it
[09:21:20] <timmywil> should simply follow the stack, but we can refine and make it even better.  It won't remove stuff that is needed.
[09:21:20] <JohnResig> jaubourg: we shall see!
[09:21:34] <timmywil> oh, there was something else I wanted to bring up...thinking about another bug triage meet for 1.6.3 and/or 1.7
[09:21:43] <addyosmani> Perhaps it would be useful to have some of these questions put to the closure guys directly, either offline or in a follow-up meeting.
[09:21:51] <jaubourg> heh
[09:21:53] <DaveMethvin> another triage would be good
[09:21:58] <jaubourg> +1
[09:22:07] <JohnResig> when works best for people?
[09:22:15] <rwaldron> timmywil +1
[09:22:17] <JohnResig> it would be good to get ajpiano in on it too
[09:22:19] <rwaldron> i'm easy
[09:22:31] <DaveMethvin> this week is busy for me
[09:22:34] <JohnResig> timmywil: we could probably fly you in to Boston to help, where are you located again?
[09:22:36] <DaveMethvin> next week is pretty good
[09:22:40] <JohnResig> oh, I'm busy for the next couple weeks
[09:22:41] <rwaldron> JohnResig he's in transit from Auston right now
[09:22:43] <addyosmani> +1 whenever works for the rest of the group
[09:22:45] <JohnResig> (will be in SF)
[09:22:57] <rwaldron> timmywil in Boston? awesome!
[09:23:00] <timmywil> JohnResig: I'm in Chattanooga,TN
[09:23:03] <JohnResig> addyosmani: already have, I'm talking with them
[09:23:13] <JohnResig> timmywil: ok, let's fly you up with ajpiano is in town
[09:23:16] <addyosmani> great, JohnResig!
[09:23:24] <rwaldron> Austin* (better late then never?)
[09:23:36] <rwaldron> JohnResig ajpiano should be back to boston in about 2 weeks
[09:23:43] <DaveMethvin> so are we at the week of the 26th?
[09:23:43] <timmywil> JohnResig: that would be awesome!
[09:24:10] <JohnResig> rwaldron: when abouts is that?
[09:24:12] <jaubourg> John: would be nice if we could meet the team and them... I have some serious doubt about what Closure can actually do in the ajax architecture
[09:24:26] <rwaldron> as mentioned earlier, i'm not in the office, so i cant confirm when he's due in again
[09:24:31] <JohnResig> jaubourg: I can put you in touch with them and you can talk with them
[09:24:34] <jaubourg> the week of the 26th I have a training I'm doing for bpost
[09:24:36] <rwaldron> can i email the bugs team list tomorrow?
[09:24:59] <rwaldron> that way, i can confirm with ajpiano as well
[09:25:00] <JohnResig> rwaldron: sure
[09:25:03] <timmywil> jrburke might also be a good guy to talk to about modularizing for closure
[09:25:04] <rwaldron> cool
[09:25:05] <jaubourg> JohnResig: why not but a chat with everyone would be nice, I'm sure we can clearly spot rough points all together
[09:25:07] <JohnResig> ok, we'll figure this out offline
[09:25:27] <rwaldron> sounds good
[09:25:35] <JohnResig> alright, is that it for now?
[09:25:39] <jaubourg> yep
[09:25:53] <timmywil> all i can think of unless we want to talk about 1.7 progress
[09:26:10] <timmywil> which we could save for next time
[09:26:15] <rwaldron> I added an item, time permitting
[09:26:19] <JohnResig> yeah, we need to get people assigned to issues
[09:26:31] <JohnResig> rwaldron: well, we should do it now, I think we're don
[09:26:33] <JohnResig> *done
[09:27:08] <rwaldron> awesome, ok... so I spoke to kyle simpson (who is a rad dude in person btw ;D )
[09:27:24] <rwaldron> and he filled me in on the current Firefox version support details
[09:27:50] <rwaldron> 3.0.x and 3.5.x are < 1%
[09:27:59] <rwaldron> and are no longer supported by Mozilla
[09:28:20] <blahmer> Hello, I was waiting until you were finished so as to not intrude. Just wanted to say a huge thanks (I'm a simple coder) for all the work you're doing. If it weren't for jQuery I wouldn't have learned Javascript or do cool stuff. So thanks again, keep it up.
[09:28:25] <rwaldron> Mozilla has actually done aa few rounds of "forced" updates
[09:28:31] <rwaldron> to 4.0
[09:28:40] <timmywil> blahmer: thanks!
[09:28:42] <rwaldron> so anyone left on those versions is gone
[09:28:47] <JohnResig> blahmer: glad to help!
[09:28:51] <rwaldron> lost to the black smoke on the lost island
[09:28:53] <jaubourg> blahmer :)
[09:28:53] <JohnResig> rwaldron: ok, I'm fine with that then :)
[09:28:59] <rwaldron> ok
[09:29:02] <rwaldron> 1 more thing
[09:29:05] <JohnResig> so 3.6, 4.0, and 5.0 (when out)
[09:29:15] <rwaldron> Firefox is moving towards auto-update
[09:29:18] <rwaldron> late august
[09:29:33] <rwaldron> i just want to note that we should revisit this then
[09:29:37] <rwaldron> and that is all
[09:29:39] <JohnResig> ok! good to know
[09:29:55] <rwaldron> cool, I'm going to update the triage docs
[09:30:02] <timmywil> firefox might need to be treated a little differently than chrome since not everyone is updating to 4.0 to enable auto-update
[09:30:11] <jaubourg> I just hope they fix bugs... cause my report has been ignored for months :/
[09:30:12] <DaveMethvin> thanks rwaldron!
[09:30:14] <timmywil> so at least 3.6 for a while
[09:30:20] <rwaldron> timmywil they are employing a force update system
[09:30:22] <JohnResig> timmywil: yep
[09:30:25] <rwaldron> to move people along
[09:30:27] <DaveMethvin> jaubourg: you mean your one with the arguments obj?
[09:30:31] <rwaldron> so, like i said, we can revisit
[09:30:31] <jaubourg> yep
[09:30:33] <timmywil> rwaldron: yea, but it won't work for <4
[09:30:34] <rwaldron> no harm in that
[09:30:49] <JohnResig> ok, so I think we're done
[09:30:57] <JohnResig> that's it for now - thanks everyone!
[09:30:58] <DaveMethvin> that's an es5 restriction, they shouldn't be enforcing it unless you "use strict" I think
[09:31:04] <rwaldron> timmywil, no thats who was targetted in the "force push"
[09:31:14] * DaveMethvin scurries back to #jquery-dev
[09:31:17] <JohnResig> :)