[09:02:12] * gnarf yawns
[09:02:24] <jaubourg> hi there
[09:03:04] <addyosmani> heya jaubourg
[09:03:49] <ajpiano> hi gents
[09:03:59] <ajpiano> just pokin around to see who's here
[09:04:16] <danheberden> *giggle* watch where you're pokin man
[09:04:20] <jaubourg> \o/
[09:04:55] <timmywil> docs#10000 was anti-climactic
[09:05:19] <danheberden> it
[09:05:24] <danheberden> 's over 9000?
[09:05:26] <addyosmani> http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/10000
[09:05:28] <addyosmani> sad face
[09:05:39] <gnarf> yeah
[09:05:43] <gnarf> agreed
[09:05:44] <addyosmani> :D
[09:05:46] <addyosmani> can we delete it and replace it with something more exciting?
[09:05:55] <timmywil> haha
[09:05:55] <jaubourg> gosh! it's not an ajax bug :/
[09:06:12] <timmywil> yea, don't get a lot of position bugs anymore, so that's good.
[09:06:38] <timmywil> jaubourg: just curious, what's the state of jQuery.Callbacks?
[09:06:53] <jaubourg> about to get back to it after a long hiatus
[09:07:05] <timmywil> cool
[09:07:16] <jaubourg> it's mainly there, but I wanna make it bettar :P
[09:07:44] <timmywil> I think Dave is making good headway on events.  I still haven't dug into sizzle, but that is next on my list.
[09:08:50] <ajpiano> whoops got disconnected
[09:09:02] <gnarf> no agenda typed up for today it seems
[09:09:05] <gnarf> :/
[09:09:23] <ajpiano> rick is talking to me right now about a specific thing wrt to the tests
[09:09:28] <timmywil> http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/6150 is the only open ticket for 1.6.3
[09:09:59] <timmywil> excuse me, and http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/9521
[09:10:18] <timmywil> that's all john tho
[09:10:55] <jaubourg> oh man, we need a status for bugs that says "that's all john tho"
[09:11:04] <timmywil> hehe
[09:11:11] <timmywil> it's called "selector" ?
[09:11:29] <timmywil> ??????
[09:12:03] <jaubourg> ????????
[09:12:08] <jaubourg> I CAN HAZ MOAR ?
[09:12:11] <timmywil> jk
[09:12:38] <gnarf> oh
[09:12:45] <timmywil> i like to pretend that sizzle is a dragon that will eat my face
[09:12:46] <gnarf> john moved 6150 to 1.6.3?
[09:12:50] <gnarf> i missed that email
[09:12:51] <gnarf> lame
[09:13:04] <gnarf> i woulda done a pull for it sooner
[09:13:22] <addyosmani> was it mentioned in the meeting notes at all? thought he said he was moving it to 1.6.3 last time
[09:13:37] <timmywil> gnarf: should that wait for the animate rewrite?  and did we ever think of a problem with the setTimeout( f, 0 ) around the callback?
[09:14:21] <timmywil> addyosmani: yea it's in the notes
[09:14:48] <timmywil> 9413 and 9823 are fixed
[09:15:04] <gnarf> timmywil: not sure, we could always make delay a non-property animation
[09:15:33] <gnarf> jQuery.cssHooks.delay = { set: $.noop, get: return 0 };
[09:15:36] <gnarf> or something
[09:15:41] <timmywil> jaubourg and I pushed http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/9823 up to 1.6.3
[09:17:35] <timmywil> gnarf: perhaps
[09:17:46] <timmywil> gnarf: i'll be interesested to see your pull
[09:17:59] <jaubourg> ... ahem... raf... ahem ;)
[09:18:06] <timmywil> ah yes
[09:18:15] <timmywil> im anti-flag
[09:19:02] <jaubourg> damn, you're not a patriot!
[09:19:12] * jaubourg hides
[09:19:15] <timmywil> We have https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/446 and https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/436
[09:19:20] <gnarf> I think we should try to push something about it on 1.6.3 tho
[09:19:38] <gnarf> https://github.com/gnarf37/jquery/compare/ticket_9381_2
[09:19:47] <gnarf> thats the other branch too
[09:19:56] <gnarf> like i said, thats totally not ready to pull tho
[09:20:04] <gnarf> if we want to move that way, I can make it prettier
[09:20:08] <gnarf> but it seems too heavy for 1.6.3
[09:20:36] <gnarf> I think the flag is really really tiny
[09:20:43] <timmywil> For those new to this, the consensus seems to be adding a flag on jQuery.support.raf to shut off requestAnimationFrame completely if the user so desires.  This isn't so much a fix as a workaround in my mind and I'm concerned that if we add it, we won't be able to remove it later.
[09:20:46] <gnarf> its also a bunt
[09:21:23] <timmywil> http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/9381
[09:21:33] <gnarf> there is a huge log in 436 about it
[09:21:34] <jaubourg> timmywil: I agree it's a workaround, but I'd prefer if we take time to keep our options open and the flag is the best way to do that
[09:22:23] <jaubourg> try and incantate a threshold value or any other non-sense is not an option
[09:22:53] <timmywil> maybe we could document that it might get removed in the future if we can find a workable solution to solve the queueing/timing problems
[09:24:01] <gnarf> IMO its either cantfix, or we add a flag - anything else is way too involved of a solution, *shrug*
[09:24:19] <timmywil> We probably can't say cantfix
[09:24:22] <gnarf> the 446 pull seems like an even worse problem than now
[09:24:29] <timmywil> considering the regression in behavior
[09:24:58] <gnarf> even more not in the last version behavior
[09:25:01] <timmywil> OK, so do we agree that if we do the flag it will on jQuery.support.raf?
[09:25:05] <timmywil> be*
[09:25:16] <jaubourg> I'd put it there personally
[09:25:24] <gnarf> timmywil: i brought up a point about that with Dave
[09:25:36] <gnarf> pasted the log in the 436 pull
[09:26:02] <timmywil> oh right, so jQuery.fx.raf?
[09:26:02] <gnarf> the "test" for raf is basically detecting which raf function to use
[09:26:39] <gnarf> so it really makes no sense to duplicate that whole code in support... I suppose that from effects.js I could set jQuery.support.raf
[09:26:40] <jaubourg> I test for cors within ajax, and I still put it on jquery.support
[09:26:44] <timmywil> im also fine with that.  Yea, which is why I originally moved it from support to an internal var in effects
[09:26:56] <jaubourg> feature detection result => support
[09:27:15] <jaubourg> doesn't matter where it is actually done
[09:27:17] <timmywil> it's not so much feature detection as a declaration to me
[09:27:30] <gnarf> timmywil: well the "support" is just the true/false
[09:27:33] <gnarf> or the flag
[09:27:37] <gnarf> its not the actual function
[09:27:48] <timmywil> could it be the function?
[09:27:55] <jaubourg> well, you could put the function/name itself... leave it falsy if there is no raf
[09:28:14] <gnarf> it could be - but I imagine we'd want to keep our own copy of it
[09:28:16] <gnarf> still
[09:28:39] <gnarf> unless we want the user to be able to provide their own raf? that just sounds dangerous to me
[09:28:50] <timmywil> but their own problem if they do
[09:29:08] <timmywil> like hooks
[09:29:36] <gnarf> are you still anti-flag? :)
[09:29:38] <jaubourg> yes, I say, put the function
[09:29:40] <timmywil> still, I don't see more happening than possiby setting it to false
[09:29:46] <timmywil> gnarf: I think I've lost that battle :)
[09:30:10] <jaubourg> timmywil: we all lost the battle when we added raf without thinking 2 steps ahead
[09:30:12] <jaubourg> ;)
[09:30:15] <gnarf> timmywil: i'm anti-flag in the sense that I think that people who use animate should just learn better ways to handle it
[09:30:19] <timmywil> good point
[09:31:19] <timmywil> OK, due to scope, it would be easier to add this flag to jQuery.fx then.  so I'd lean toward there then.  as well as it being the function itself.
[09:31:34] <jaubourg> ><
[09:31:59] <timmywil> jaubourg: you're still pro-support?
[09:32:12] <jaubourg> https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/ajax/xhr.js#L42
[09:32:27] <jaubourg> I hate the idea of having stuff scattered all around
[09:32:45] <jaubourg> it's easy enough to test inside effects and put the result on support
[09:33:00] <timmywil> i understand, it's just I think of this more like jQuery.fx.interval then jQuery.support.someTest
[09:33:06] <jaubourg> then tell people: wanna neuter something? set some support property to false
[09:33:30] <jaubourg> fx.interval should die and has nothing to do with feature detection
[09:34:03] <jaubourg> my opinion of course
[09:34:06] <timmywil> hehe, we'll probably have to argue further with dave around
[09:34:35] <timmywil> but I'm not super opposed to either
[09:35:23] <jaubourg> god I hate this flag, you know... wish we had waited before cramming raf in... we have to be more careful in the future with new techs
[09:35:34] <timmywil> agreed
[09:35:52] <timmywil> anything else we want to talk about?
[09:36:13] <timmywil> ajpiano, JohnResig ^
[09:37:10] <ajpiano> i don't have anything offhand, i know rick is gonna send an e-mail around to bugs team
[09:37:11] <gnarf> i kinda hate the flag too, i think jaubourg's idea of cramming a second loop to kill dead timers is better solution
[09:37:17] <ajpiano> about release process and making sure tests are run
[09:37:25] <ajpiano> there was some strnage stuff that happened in 1.6.2 cycle
[09:38:40] <timmywil> ok, im gonna head to lunch then.  thanks everybody!
[09:38:51] <jaubourg> yep, I gotta run too