[08:55:22] <rwaldron> hello jaubourg DaveMethvin ajpiano JohnResig danheberden timmywil
[08:55:37] <DaveMethvin> hey rwaldron, got a car yet?
[08:56:08] <rwaldron> I put a deposit on a silver 2007 Chevy Cobalt
[08:56:17] <jaubourg> niiiice
[08:56:18] <rwaldron> this shit is sensible!
[08:56:22] <rwaldron> :D
[08:56:23] <jaubourg> hey scott
[08:56:27] <rwaldron> hey scott_gonzalez
[08:56:30] <scott_gonzalez> hey
[08:57:47] <JohnResig> hey everyone!
[08:57:57] <rwaldron> hey JohnResig
[08:58:02] <jaubourg> hey John
[08:58:03] <DaveMethvin> hey!
[08:58:32] <timmywil> hihihi
[08:58:48] <timmywil> hi
[08:58:57] <JohnResig> alright, just tweeted the meeting
[08:59:03] <gnarf> tweet tweet
[08:59:49] <rwaldron> hey gnarf
[09:00:05] * gnarf waves, grabs a chair
[09:00:52] <jaubourg> ding ding ding, session opened :)
[09:00:54] <rwaldron> 12:00
[09:00:58] <rwaldron> hahaha
[09:01:00] <bob_> lol
[09:01:02] <rwaldron> nice jaubourg
[09:01:09] <jaubourg> :)
[09:01:10] <DaveMethvin> i put a few things on the agenda
[09:01:12] * gnarf hands jaubourg a gavel instead of a bell
[09:01:27] <jaubourg> plang plang plang, got a gavel
[09:01:29] <DaveMethvin> mainly trying to herd cats towards 1.7 release
[09:01:31] <JohnResig> phew... lots of 1.7 blockers
[09:01:42] <rwaldron> I'm excited
[09:01:57] * jaubourg looks at rick all aroused
[09:02:05] <jaubourg> did I say that out loud?
[09:02:13] <gnarf> DaveMethvin: can we add 9583 to discuss? :)
[09:02:19] <jaubourg> +1 gnarf
[09:02:20] <DaveMethvin> fine with me
[09:02:21] <gnarf> sry
[09:02:24] <gnarf> bad #
[09:02:25] <gnarf> 9381
[09:02:28] <rwaldron> jaubourg, settle down. october is like 2 months away
[09:02:31] <gnarf> dunno where 9583 came from
[09:02:43] <jaubourg> rwaldron: the wait will kill me
[09:02:46] <JohnResig> ok, so we need to start assigning
[09:02:59] <rwaldron> I just accepted docs#8789
[09:03:01] <bot-t> [#8789] Meta: Event Property Hooks (messaging event props touch event props) - http://jqbug.com/8789
[09:03:08] <rwaldron> I'm not sure why i hadnt done so yet
[09:03:12] <rwaldron> i thought I had
[09:03:18] <timmywil> i was assigned sizzle stuff, now I'm scared
[09:03:23] <BobDolman> hello guys
[09:03:35] <DaveMethvin> hey BobDolman
[09:03:38] <JohnResig> timmywil: haha, that's what you get
[09:03:44] <jaubourg> hehe
[09:03:49] <JohnResig> first you touch attributes, then sizzle attributes, then it's all downhill from there
[09:03:59] <DaveMethvin> can't have sizzle without the steak
[09:04:07] <timmywil> nomnom
[09:04:11] <jaubourg> then you'll be called Timmy Resig... end of the world my friend
[09:04:31] <DaveMethvin> where there's a timmywil there's a way
[09:04:31] <timmywil> I always thought that would be a good name for me ;)
[09:04:47] <timmywil> maybe that's different
[09:05:18] <JohnResig> ok, so let's go through the 1.7 list and assign bugs
[09:05:25] <JohnResig> be sure to reload, I've already assigned some
[09:05:51] <timmywil> I think rwaldron could take 6809
[09:05:57] <timmywil> docs#6809
[09:05:58] <bot-t> [#6809] Add jQuery.support.fixedPosition (open enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/6809
[09:05:59] <rwaldron> JohnResig as have i
[09:06:08] <rwaldron> not to many left to dish out
[09:06:21] <JohnResig> huh, cowboy assigned a bug to me
[09:06:23] * JohnResig squnits
[09:06:29] <DaveMethvin> lol
[09:06:39] <DaveMethvin> I'll take docs#6942
[09:06:40] <bot-t> [#6942] JQuery.event.fix causes unnecessary reflows in IE when handling key events (open enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/6942
[09:06:45] <timmywil> paul_irish: can we assign docs#6485 to you?
[09:06:46] <bot-t> paul_irish, [#6485] Solution for HTML5 in IE (open feature) - http://jqbug.com/6485
[09:06:50] <JohnResig> well, some have an owner that doesn't make sense
[09:06:50] <timmywil> cause that would rock
[09:06:58] <JohnResig> rebecca isn't doing multi attribute, for example
[09:07:09] <DaveMethvin> WHY NOT :P
[09:07:17] <rwaldron> JohnResig there is already a pull requst
[09:07:22] <rwaldron> from here
[09:07:24] <rwaldron> her*
[09:07:29] <JohnResig> ah, ok
[09:07:36] <DaveMethvin> i think there were questions about backcompat
[09:07:37] <JohnResig> so we just need someone to handle landing it safely
[09:07:43] <timmywil> it might need some twearking
[09:07:48] <rwaldron> timmywil +1
[09:07:51] <timmywil> lol
[09:07:55] <timmywil> i walked intot that
[09:07:56] <DaveMethvin> ideally we wanted space delimiters but you can't do that for .data names
[09:07:57] <timmywil> ok
[09:08:05] <JohnResig> a bunch of bugs are "owned by gnarf - but only because he filed them
[09:08:09] <JohnResig> so we need to reassign those
[09:08:15] <DaveMethvin> serves him right :)
[09:08:21] <gnarf> I'm willing to handle em
[09:08:29] <gnarf> most of them already have pulls
[09:08:36] <rwaldron> I was just about to say that
[09:08:53] <BobDolman> I hate IE, most of the developers do... Why don't everybody else does?
[09:09:15] <JohnResig> ok - so what are we doing with docs#6362
[09:09:16] <bot-t> [#6362] jQuery.index() and jQuery.indexIn() (open enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/6362
[09:09:28] <JohnResig> it doesn't seem like there is a clear consensus - and we're not changing an API
[09:09:47] <DaveMethvin> i wasn't sure myself, that's why i didn't close it
[09:09:52] <DaveMethvin> when we did the bug bash
[09:10:29] <JohnResig> yeah, we should close it and ask for a clear solution rather than something ambiguous
[09:11:03] <rwaldron> +1
[09:11:07] <DaveMethvin> k i can do that
[09:11:08] <JohnResig> k, just closed
[09:11:11] <JohnResig> no worries, I got it
[09:11:12] <jaubourg> k
[09:11:29] <timmywil> api is a little backwards right now tho
[09:11:31] <JohnResig> so docs#6150 is assigned to me
[09:11:32] <bot-t> [#6150] .stop sometimes doesn't clear .delay (assigned bug) - http://jqbug.com/6150
[09:11:44] <JohnResig> timmywil: but there isn't a solid proposal to fix it
[09:11:44] <timmywil> but yea close
[09:11:52] <JohnResig> who was working on the timer stuff?
[09:11:54] <timmywil> agreed
[09:11:58] <gnarf> sometimes doesn't... isn't it always doesn't?
[09:12:00] <JohnResig> was that louisremi?
[09:12:08] <jaubourg> I'd gather it's always
[09:12:24] <gnarf> I've been deep into animate, i think timmywil is diving too
[09:12:31] <truta> hello
[09:12:39] <jaubourg> I can work in animate too... but it's in queue :P
[09:12:49] <jaubourg> delay I mean
[09:12:49] <JohnResig> gnarf: k, I can assign to you?
[09:13:02] <gnarf> yeah, queue
[09:13:15] <JohnResig> too late, assigned to you
[09:13:17] <JohnResig> you got the hot potato
[09:13:21] <jaubourg> haha
[09:13:22] <DaveMethvin> lol
[09:13:28] <BobDolman> lol
[09:13:30] <gnarf> and sure, i'll dive into it, but any solution in the current stuff is going to look like a hack
[09:13:34] <JohnResig> ok, so docs#6782
[09:13:35] <bot-t> ok, [#6782] carefully allow more strings to use innerHTML (assigned enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/6782
[09:13:47] <JohnResig> has a pull request and a test case
[09:13:52] <jaubourg> gnarf: only decent solution would be to implement delay as a do-nothing animation
[09:13:56] <JohnResig> DaveMethvin: I think you were looking at this before?
[09:13:57] <timmywil> gnarf: we'll work on it together, might have to wait for 1.8
[09:14:14] <DaveMethvin> yeah, i vaguely recall an issue with <select>s
[09:14:24] <JohnResig> DaveMethvin: want to handle landing this pull?
[09:14:29] <DaveMethvin> sure, why not
[09:14:35] <gnarf> jaubourg: it actually coincides with a UI bug I've been wanting to solve anyway, lets talk in -dev +timmywill
[09:14:53] <jaubourg> gnarf: no problem
[09:15:43] <timmywil> i'll go ahead and take docs#9261
[09:15:44] <bot-t> [#9261] Has Attribute not working in filter/children/siblings (open bug) - http://jqbug.com/9261
[09:16:30] <ajpiano> hey guys sorry. just got a bunch of urgent news bout a client thing
[09:16:32] <JohnResig> ok so docs#6863
[09:16:33] <bot-t> [#6863] faster getText (open enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/6863
[09:16:47] <DaveMethvin> so whaddya think about #6863?
[09:16:48] <rwaldron> it's ok ajpiano
[09:16:55] <rwaldron> we're going over this: http://bugs.jquery.com/query?status=assigned&status=new&status=open&status=pending&status=reopened&milestone=1.7&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&col=component&order=priority
[09:17:06] <DaveMethvin> i did some testing on it a while ago and it did seem to work better in ie
[09:17:14] <DaveMethvin> than what we have for .text() right now
[09:17:19] <DaveMethvin> which of course comes from Sizzle
[09:17:33] <DaveMethvin> it uses innerText/textContent
[09:17:52] <DaveMethvin> the big difference is that whitespace is less mangled with the new one
[09:17:54] <DaveMethvin> in ie
[09:18:05] <addyosmani> +1 as long as the perf results are consistent cross-browser for the majority of scenarios where getTest() is going to be used.
[09:18:31] <JohnResig> we're looking at this one it seems? https://github.com/jquery/sizzle/pull/59/files
[09:19:07] <DaveMethvin> I tell you what, I'll grab #6863
[09:19:12] <JohnResig> k
[09:19:50] <JohnResig> are we doing docs#8792 this time around?
[09:19:51] <bot-t> [#8792] Attach data objects directly to DOM elements (open enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/8792
[09:19:55] <JohnResig> it appears to be assigned to 1.7
[09:20:14] <DaveMethvin> when i looked at it for 1.6 i didn't see the payback until we eliminate global events
[09:20:22] <JohnResig> ok, so nope
[09:20:23] <DaveMethvin> otherwise we have a bunch of bookkeeping to track those
[09:20:45] <JohnResig> closed
[09:21:26] <JohnResig> so we can do some mapping for docs#9400
[09:21:28] <bot-t> [#9400] Remove :input Selectors (open enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/9400
[09:21:30] <JohnResig> but we can't do it for all
[09:21:38] <JohnResig> won't work for :button or :input for example
[09:21:46] <rwaldron> gnarf can you look at docs#9893
[09:21:48] <bot-t> [#9893] jQuery.animate() IE9 Bug (new bug) - http://jqbug.com/9893
[09:21:49] <rwaldron> thanks
[09:21:50] <JohnResig> since they're equivalent to selectors that don't exist
[09:22:11] <gnarf> rwaldron: I suppose it can be the reason I clone my IE8 vm and finally get IE9 ;)
[09:22:19] <DaveMethvin> can/should we deprecate them now though?
[09:22:23] <JohnResig> I would prefer that we hold off on changing this until we rewrite Sizzle
[09:22:27] <rwaldron> oh, sorry... i didnt realize you didnt have access to IE9
[09:22:30] <rwaldron> nvm then
[09:22:34] <JohnResig> DaveMethvin: nah, I think we can keep them, especially once we do the rewrite
[09:23:26] <gnarf> JohnResig: 9400 was my suggestion originally, and the first stop was basically "deprecate" and "document"
[09:23:30] <gnarf> remove in 1.8
[09:23:33] <gnarf> or something was the idea
[09:23:49] <JohnResig> gnarf: yeah, but I think we can keep them - because we can get the performance up
[09:24:05] <JohnResig> but it'll depend upon the rewrite of Sizzle
[09:24:13] <gnarf> fair nuff
[09:24:15] <JohnResig> (which I want to do, probably for 1.8)
[09:24:23] <timmywil> gnarf: http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/9893#comment:2
[09:24:23] <DaveMethvin> i think we should be encouraging ppl to use standard selectors, and we do have a note to that effect on there already
[09:24:27] <JohnResig> k, I'll make a new 1.8 milestone
[09:24:36] <jaubourg> good idea
[09:24:55] <gnarf> DaveMethvin: yeah, I added that note to all the non-standard selectors
[09:25:08] <rwaldron> oooo
[09:25:14] <rwaldron> i'm going to file a ticket for 1.8
[09:25:19] <rwaldron> >:D
[09:25:28] <gnarf> 1.8 is buggy and breaks everything! onoes!
[09:25:40] <DaveMethvin> i'm gonna close it wontfix!
[09:25:40] <JohnResig> ok so thoughts on docs#9895?
[09:25:44] <bot-t> JohnResig, #9895 (Memory Leak in fxqueue) – jQuery Core - Bug Tracker - Opened 3 days ago http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/9895
[09:25:57] <DaveMethvin> i posted some stuff
[09:25:59] <JohnResig> it sounds like the issue is tangential to the regex
[09:26:03] <DaveMethvin> agreed
[09:26:05] <jaubourg> tab not focussed, raf not fired, memory not freed?
[09:26:07] <JohnResig> it sounds like we aren't removing stuff from fxqueue
[09:26:30] <DaveMethvin> especially if you ran it for like a day
[09:26:36] <DaveMethvin> not in focus
[09:26:40] <timmywil> they don't get removed if callbacks throw an error
[09:26:58] <timmywil> but idk what's going on
[09:27:12] <DaveMethvin> you can see the test case in the bugzilla ticket, it's some jquery tools code i think
[09:27:29] <DaveMethvin> kind of hard to follow
[09:27:44] <DaveMethvin> but if we put in gnarf's requestanimationframe disabler we could see if that changed the test
[09:27:50] <hibody> hi folks
[09:28:11] <DaveMethvin> it could be some sort of circular reference leak
[09:28:31] <hibody> :q
[09:28:32] <timmywil> also, that's jQuery 1.6.1, if that could make a difference
[09:29:05] <JohnResig> hmm, ok - gnarf do you want to check in to it?
[09:29:08] <jaubourg> not repeatable with 1.6.0?
[09:30:02] <gnarf> i'm not versed in mem leak tests
[09:30:15] <DaveMethvin> gnarf: i can help yo with it
[09:30:16] <jaubourg> I fear few of us are
[09:30:18] <rwaldron> use sIEve
[09:30:27] <JohnResig> ok, so I'll give it to DaveMethvin and he'll work with gnarf
[09:30:36] <gnarf> it would make sense tho
[09:30:41] <gnarf> if the browser tab has no focus
[09:30:48] <gnarf> and there is some sort of setInterval queueing
[09:30:55] <gnarf> there will just be a ton of animations waiting to play
[09:30:58] <DaveMethvin> yep
[09:31:00] <JohnResig> ok, all the blockers are assigned
[09:31:06] <rwaldron> neat!
[09:31:30] <JohnResig> what else did we want to cover in the meeting?
[09:31:42] <rwaldron> There are two bugs that have been listed
[09:31:46] <rwaldron> and I added an item
[09:31:58] <JohnResig> rwaldron: we already discussed them, I think?
[09:31:59] <DaveMethvin> also timelines for the release
[09:32:01] <gnarf> and I'd like to chat on docs#9381
[09:32:02] <rwaldron> Ok cool
[09:32:03] <bot-t> [#9381] animations halt when the browser is out of focus due to requestAnimationFrame (open bug) - http://jqbug.com/9381
[09:32:11] <rwaldron> just making sure they got their moment in the sun
[09:32:17] <rwaldron> I dont know who added them
[09:32:47] <DaveMethvin> i added them
[09:33:05] <gnarf> so 9381, or some sort of solution to this problem should see the light soon
[09:33:31] <DaveMethvin> yeah it's defn one that ppl are stumbling over
[09:33:35] <gnarf> comment 22/23 have two potential solutions
[09:33:38] <DaveMethvin> like that bugzilla one
[09:33:52] <jaubourg> ?#9883
[09:33:53] <bot-t> [#9883] Allow users to respond to other ajax event states. (assigned enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/9883
[09:34:53] <jaubourg> I wanted to bring this to the table because it wasn't discussed for 1.7 yet doesn't seem like an awfully expensive thing to do while we have progress callbacks in 1.7 (no consequences on existing code)
[09:35:22] <jaubourg> won't break a thing, just requires a third argument to the transports send method
[09:35:43] <DaveMethvin> wait tho jaubourg let's finish the animation one
[09:35:48] <jaubourg> sorry
[09:36:19] <gnarf> I suppose we need to find a solution to the raf issue --- we broke queueing
[09:36:31] <gnarf> or at least the "reliability" of the queue
[09:36:41] <timmywil> i'd prefer the flag
[09:36:49] <gnarf> its not a "real" fix tho
[09:36:51] <jaubourg> we need to re-introduce the timer somehow: schedule animations with the timer, render with raf
[09:36:54] <DaveMethvin> so on animation, disabling rAF reverts to the old behavior but is that the best way forward? do we need some other design and if so can it be done without changing the animation semantics?
[09:37:03] <gnarf> it just kinda undoes the raf entirely
[09:37:08] <timmywil> ^^^
[09:37:17] <DaveMethvin> jQuery.animation.traditional
[09:37:19] * DaveMethvin ducks
[09:37:24] * jaubourg spanks
[09:37:34] <timmywil> it makes sense for queuing, but not if we want the full advantages of raf
[09:37:43] <gnarf> DaveMethvin: the other option, is to set up a secondary interval that "cleans" ended animations
[09:37:59] <jaubourg> thing is we always did redering and scheduling with the same callbacks, we cannot do that anymore with raf
[09:38:05] <DaveMethvin> right
[09:38:12] <jaubourg> we have two "workers": one that schedule the queue, another that renders
[09:38:27] <timmywil> which again, isn't always needed
[09:38:39] <DaveMethvin> jaubourg:  that architecture seems like the right one logicaly
[09:38:48] <timmywil> im alone in this aren't I
[09:38:52] <DaveMethvin> lol
[09:38:52] <rwaldron> So, we actually have a similar branch n development for Popcorn.js
[09:39:01] <jaubourg> timmywil: you'll need it whenever a user switches to another tab
[09:39:06] <gnarf> timmywil: maybe - but probably not entirely
[09:39:12] <rwaldron> that will allow users to switch on requestAnimationFrame instead of timeupdate events
[09:39:16] <DaveMethvin> yeah rwaldron i wondered if you had hit this
[09:39:16] <timmywil> jaubourg: not if I want the raf behavior
[09:39:29] <rwaldron> it was implemented as an optional flag
[09:39:33] <jaubourg> timmy: I think you didn't follow what I was proposing here
[09:39:53] <jaubourg> keep raf for rendering, have the timer schedule the queue
[09:39:58] <gnarf> if someone schedules an animation to end in 500 ms
[09:40:03] <gnarf> they want it over in 500ms
[09:40:10] <rwaldron> Basically, it's something similar to: Popcorn("#video", { rAF: true })
[09:40:17] <gnarf> not 500ms + however long someone waits to tab back
[09:40:36] <timmywil> gnarf: why not? that's the default raf behavior
[09:40:57] <DaveMethvin> timmywil: but rAF is surprising to people, in a bad way
[09:41:11] <DaveMethvin> ideally they should see rAF behavior as good
[09:41:16] <DaveMethvin> because it saves CPU time and battery
[09:41:19] <DaveMethvin> but they don't
[09:41:30] <jaubourg> timmywil: it's exactly like in a game, you don't pause world updates because you're not rendering
[09:41:33] <gnarf> because they are depending on the scheduled end of an animation
[09:41:49] <timmywil> jaubourg: you might if you're in a browser :P
[09:41:56] <DaveMethvin> lol
[09:41:57] <jaubourg> still doesn't make sense
[09:42:00] <jaubourg> :P
[09:42:18] <DaveMethvin> the world doesn't stop when you tab away from it :)
[09:42:45] <timmywil> but I want it tooooooo
[09:42:46] <jaubourg> exactly, thing is, in older jQuery, it was ok to mix scheduling and rendering, because we knew the timer would be fired
[09:42:56] <jaubourg> we have to separate things now
[09:42:57] <DaveMethvin> right so now we have to pry them apart
[09:43:08] <gnarf> or put them back together
[09:43:14] <gnarf> with a scheduler + rendering loop
[09:43:22] <DaveMethvin> but it still seems like bad practice to use setInterval
[09:43:28] <timmywil> alright, i guess I've exhausted the other side at this point
[09:43:28] <rwaldron> +1
[09:43:34] <gnarf> DaveMethvin: agreed, setTimeout loop makes more sense
[09:43:35] <jaubourg> setTimeout to the closest scheduling event
[09:44:01] <jaubourg> but it means we have to separate the two even for browsers that don't have raf
[09:44:06] <jaubourg> that's the key here
[09:44:17] <DaveMethvin> and might we run into timing issues doing that??
[09:44:23] <rwaldron> So, going back to the comment that sparked this riot... the effect that was trying to be acheived could've easily been dealt with if the poster had written a better system
[09:44:25] <gnarf> jaubourg: i don't think we do
[09:44:34] <DaveMethvin> careful how you answer, or i'll switch to timmywil's side
[09:44:46] <jaubourg> gnarf: you really want to hack like crazy?
[09:44:48] <DaveMethvin> rwaldron: agreed
[09:44:59] <DaveMethvin> but there is a lot of that "bad" code out there
[09:45:09] <gnarf> rwaldron: yeah, agreed, but there are situations that are hard to pry apart schedule + animate
[09:45:09] <jaubourg> DaveMethvin: it's not as imprecise as the setInterval system is
[09:45:51] <DaveMethvin> so is the solution to have a .disableRAFBecauseIAmLazy
[09:45:51] <rwaldron> setInterval is awful. just sayin.
[09:45:51] <DaveMethvin> if so then fine
[09:45:51] <DaveMethvin> it's easy
[09:45:51] <jaubourg> it's not bad code, it's people relying on jQuery enforcing hard time contraints when using animate
[09:45:51] <rwaldron> speaking of... we banned the use of it in any popcorn related code
[09:45:53] <rwaldron> which, as you can imagine, involves a lot of timed stuff
[09:46:03] <gnarf> i'll convert the main timer loop to setTimeout instead of setInterval if we tackle this
[09:46:06] <gnarf> :)
[09:46:14] <rwaldron> gnarf that's a bonus
[09:46:28] <gnarf> jaubourg: I'm not sure there needs to be a ton of hackery involved
[09:46:34] <gnarf> the timers loop handles both already
[09:46:49] <jaubourg> well, we'd have a much better code if we separated scheduling and rendering, just saying
[09:46:51] <DaveMethvin> so the plan is to land this in 1.7 I guess? Prolly shouldn't wait
[09:46:51] <timmywil>  settimeout loop might also be a good idea if we implement louisremi's throttling
[09:47:19] <gnarf> DaveMethvin: If we release a 1.6.3 I think it should slide into that too
[09:47:28] <timmywil> given that intervals could be set to lower than 13ms, we could avoid the crash issue altogether
[09:47:30] <gnarf> its pretty hot, and bothersom
[09:47:38] <DaveMethvin> if it's just the flag, maybe, but any redesign should wait
[09:47:40] <rwaldron> gnarf hehe
[09:47:51] <gnarf> DaveMethvin: we can hack the .raf flag in
[09:47:53] <jaubourg> if we implement throttling and keep scheudling and rendering together, we'll hit similar problems. I say it so that I can later say "told you so": the two need to be separated
[09:47:54] <jaubourg> :P
[09:47:56] <gnarf> either way
[09:47:58] <gnarf> its tiny
[09:48:02] <gnarf> like +5 bytes minified
[09:48:19] <timmywil> jaubourg: I was agreeing
[09:48:27] <DaveMethvin> you think we're made of memory around here? 5 bytes????
[09:48:35] <JohnResig> haha
[09:48:40] <jaubourg> looool
[09:48:40] <gnarf> :)
[09:48:50] <DaveMethvin> ok so i guess we're ready for jaubourg's ticket?
[09:49:05] <jaubourg> ?#9883
[09:49:05] <gnarf> jaubourg: I'll attack it both ways
[09:49:06] <bot-t> [#9883] Allow users to respond to other ajax event states. (assigned enhancement) - http://jqbug.com/9883
[09:49:08] <gnarf> we can play with it
[09:49:28] <timmywil> well, if we add the flag, can we remove it in 1.7?
[09:49:46] <jaubourg> good point
[09:50:35] <DaveMethvin> does it hurt to have the flag? basically it just overrides the feature detect
[09:50:41] <gnarf> timmywil: we could
[09:50:44] <gnarf> but what DaveMethvin
[09:50:45] <gnarf> said
[09:50:47] <timmywil> I don't want people to start using it then we work out a better solution and we can't get rid of it cause of back-compat
[09:50:57] <DaveMethvin> we can call it .myCodeSucks and that would discourage its use
[09:51:02] <timmywil> lol
[09:51:04] <jaubourg> in that case, tell people to set a flag in support to false
[09:51:15] <jaubourg> like we do by telling people to set a flag to true for cors already
[09:51:16] <DaveMethvin> jaubourg: good point!
[09:51:19] <rwaldron> DaveMethvin  i like that
[09:51:40] <timmywil> we could attach our requestAnimationFrame definition to jQuery and let users set that to false
[09:51:43] <rwaldron> hey... what if
[09:51:45] <DaveMethvin> it's hacky enough to be look-the-other-way supported
[09:51:45] <timmywil> ^^^^^^
[09:52:02] <gnarf> timmywil: thats my pull
[09:52:02] <rwaldron> it was a property of the object that you pass to jQuery.fn.animate?
[09:52:20] <timmywil> oh, well, pretend I didn't say that
[09:52:37] <timmywil> that's no flag then
[09:52:39] <jaubourg> rwaldron: I'd rather go the global way, less subtle, but easier to keep in without cringing at it later on
[09:52:42] <timmywil> ugh semantics
[09:52:50] <rwaldron> jaubourg i'm not married to it
[09:52:52] <rwaldron> so sure
[09:53:04] <gnarf> rwaldron: impossible to branch i think
[09:53:06] * jaubourg marries jQuery.support.cors
[09:53:18] <gnarf> rwaldron: once the loop is running, you don't want to switch between raf / non raf
[09:53:20] <DaveMethvin> well we've determined what we all are, now we're just haggling over price
[09:53:29] <gnarf> right
[09:53:38] <gnarf> 9883? :)
[09:53:43] <jaubourg> I really think having this in support would be the right place
[09:53:56] <jaubourg> ?#9883 for the third time
[09:54:00] <rwaldron> jaubourg it's intuitive
[09:54:01] <bot-t> jaubourg, jQuery API - Add elements to the set of matched elements. http://api.jquery.com/#9883 for the third time
[09:54:11] <jaubourg> hmmm
[09:54:23] <jaubourg> not what I had in mind, silly me
[09:54:31] <DaveMethvin> so this isn't a high prio feature add, maybe it could wait until 1.8?
[09:54:46] <jaubourg> 9883?
[09:54:57] <timmywil> it'll pretty much be there with jQuery.Callbacks tho right?
[09:55:32] <jaubourg> well, if we have progress, it's really simple to give access to them in transports (a third callback parameter to the transport's send method
[09:55:33] <jaubourg> )
[09:55:46] <jaubourg> then just call the progress notifier on each readystatechange
[09:55:53] <DaveMethvin> i agree that more transport-specific options are ugly but it seems like thats what will happen
[09:55:55] <rwaldron> louisremi just posted on 9381
[09:55:56] <jaubourg> very minimal, no existing code breakage
[09:55:57] <rwaldron> louisremi yt?
[09:56:20] <jaubourg> DaveMethvin: arguments of the progress notification will be transport specific
[09:56:21] <louisremi> rwaldron: yes
[09:56:25] <jaubourg> but the architecture will not
[09:56:29] <rwaldron> louisremi, gnarf timmywil jaubourg should discuss the color of your bike shed in -dev :)
[09:56:30] <louisremi> sorry I missed the begining of the meeting
[09:56:35] <jaubourg> no new option involved
[09:56:37] <DaveMethvin> oh so generically they're just transport args?
[09:57:07] <jaubourg> send( header, completeCallback, progressCallback )
[09:57:24] <jaubourg> in the send method: progressCallback( what, ever, the, transport, wants)
[09:57:37] <DaveMethvin> k
[09:57:42] <timmywil> i like it
[09:57:47] <timmywil> cleaner
[09:58:11] <jaubourg> thing is, it wasn't discussed in the roadmap, but since there is not progress system in 1.6.x, no existing code would be impacted
[09:58:17] <DaveMethvin> how many more bytes is THAT gonna cost?
[09:58:37] <jaubourg> something like 10 non-gzipped
[09:58:44] <timmywil> what?!
[09:58:50] <timmywil> ohok
[09:58:51] <DaveMethvin> gnarf could do his in 5
[09:58:59] <DaveMethvin> fatty mcfatterson
[09:59:00] <jaubourg> he gzipped iirc
[09:59:04] <timmywil> JohnResig: you can come back now
[09:59:07] <JohnResig> wooo
[09:59:08] <JohnResig> haha
[09:59:21] <JohnResig> OK, so are we all set?
[09:59:25] <timmywil> think so
[09:59:31] <jaubourg> anyway, I'd love to be able to tackle this for 1.7
[09:59:36] <rwaldron> One last bit
[09:59:44] <timmywil> jaubourg: +1
[09:59:54] <DaveMethvin> sounds like it's small and not backcompat problems so yeah
[10:00:11] <rwaldron> The pull request queue is filling up and I have some data() related changes that are piling up
[10:00:15] <jaubourg> no backcompat issue I can think of, no new ajax option
[10:00:37] <DaveMethvin> rwaldron: yeah we need a pull bash as well as a bug bash
[10:00:44] <rwaldron> forget about my stuff for a moment
[10:00:48] <rwaldron> and it's just fillin' up
[10:00:56] <jaubourg> I close pull requests and get insulted in the process :P
[10:01:17] <rwaldron> jaubourg feel free to close that camelcase abomination
[10:01:23] <timmywil> we'll go through them before 1.6.3
[10:01:27] <gnarf> sry, 11 bytes for the raf flag ;) (internal head minifier) https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/436/files
[10:01:35] <jaubourg> lol
[10:01:52] <rwaldron> this guy changed 4 files to do the same thing that i have in 5 characters
[10:01:55] <DaveMethvin> i'm making the event stuff smaller if it kills me
[10:01:56] <timmywil> gnarf: oh, I meant something a little different than that
[10:01:58] <rwaldron> uuuunnnn real
[10:02:12] <timmywil> gnarf: you can do it in 2 bytes minified
[10:02:41] <DaveMethvin> so we done?
[10:02:41] <rwaldron> jaubourg https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/441
[10:02:42] <timmywil> anyway, I think we're good
[10:02:45] <rwaldron> closable
[10:03:11] <louisremi> I have an objection to the raf flag
[10:03:13] <timmywil> back to -dev i say
[10:03:17] <jaubourg> rwaldron: closed
[10:03:20] <DaveMethvin> ... and a good time was had by all
[10:03:22] <rwaldron> neat
[10:03:37] <louisremi> It won't solve our problem since setTimeout is also "slowed down" in Firefox, in inactive tabs
[10:03:46] <timmywil> louisremi: let's discuss in dev, we can let everyone go
[10:03:49] <rwaldron> jaubourg timmywil considering you're dealing with this differently
[10:03:50] <louisremi> (and setInterval as weel)
[10:03:53] <rwaldron> https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/435/files also closable
[10:03:57] <louisremi> alright
[10:04:22] <rwaldron> jaubourg timmywil https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/434 closable per decree of new Wont_Fix page
[10:04:23] <DaveMethvin> k i'm going to -dev and then to nurse my pile of 1.7 bugs
[10:04:38] <timmywil> JohnResig: thanks!
[10:05:07] <JohnResig> take care everyone!
[10:05:58] <rwaldron> see ya JohnResig