[11:02:22] <toddparker> hi all
[11:02:35] <gseguin> hey
[11:02:51] <toddparker> looks unmoderated
[11:03:01] <toddparker> i just ran the command for good measure
[11:03:27] <toddparker> i don't think scottjehl will be here
[11:03:31] <toddparker> he's in a cabin
[11:03:35] <toddparker> with no internet
[11:03:48] <_nickel> sounds nice :D
[11:04:00] <toddparker> yeah
[11:04:19] <toddparker> since we're just in bug fixing mode, this can be quick
[11:04:20] <_nickel> its funny but that could be construed as sarcasm
[11:04:28] <_nickel> toddparker: indeed
[11:04:42] <toddparker> no, i'd like a day w/o all the electronic distractins
[11:04:47] <toddparker> but just one
[11:04:51] <toddparker> then i'd go crazy
[11:05:07] <_nickel> seriously
[11:05:13] <toddparker> so i will try to collect up issues for discussion next week
[11:05:18] <toddparker> but we're winging' it
[11:05:23] <_nickel> toddparker: as a side note I saw the readwriteweb interview (link courtesy of kinblas)
[11:05:26] <_nickel> pretty amazing
[11:05:38] <toddparker> biggest thing is the 1.0 release (obviously) and the first RC
[11:05:45] <toddparker> thanks _nickel
[11:05:48] <kinblas> filamentgroup are/have been rockstars
[11:05:52] <kinblas> :-)
[11:05:59] <toddparker> that was sort of bad…wish i knew it was going to be a direct transcript
[11:06:15] <toddparker> i though he was going to cherry pick quotes and, ya know, write an article
[11:06:20] <toddparker> heh
[11:06:32] <toddparker> we're getting a lot of attention from the globe for sure
[11:06:51] <toddparker> it's good tho, think it will shift the web/native and mobile/desktop conversation a bit
[11:06:58] <toddparker> it at least proved responsive works
[11:07:12] <toddparker> and we're going to be baking a lot of the responsive ideas into mobile
[11:07:56] <toddparker> soooo
[11:08:22] <toddparker> i've been triaging and noticed you guys are doing a great job getting to the bottom of some of these bigger issues
[11:08:26] <toddparker> thank you
[11:08:54] <kinblas> @toddparker: what's the thinking in terms of pencils down and shipping?
[11:08:55] <toddparker> do you all feel like the priorities of issues are roughly ok? i need to do a pass thru the high and medium issues
[11:09:07] <toddparker> that
[11:09:10] <toddparker> is the question
[11:09:32] <_nickel> I haven't taken a deeper look into issues outside the tags but everything seems to make sense
[11:09:33] <kinblas> @toddparker: I'd like to get bugs we want to fix for 1.0 tagged ... I haven't seen anything too terrible
[11:09:39] <_nickel> I was going to say I'm running low on criticals
[11:09:45] <toddparker> i'd like to say that we should shoot for a first RC in about 10 days or so
[11:09:48] <gseguin> same here, it makes sense
[11:09:49] * _nickel agrees with @kinblas
[11:09:51] <toddparker> _nickel: good news
[11:10:04] <toddparker> agreed on that kinblas
[11:10:12] <toddparker> i'd like your collective help on that
[11:10:25] * gseguin agrees with kinblas on the 1.0 tag
[11:10:27] <eddiemonge>  not 16 days?
[11:10:29] <kinblas> fyi I've been focussing on nav problems and hearsay on #jquerymobile
[11:10:30] <toddparker> i can tag the issues that seem important to me, but you guys amy have opinions
[11:10:42] <toddparker> good to hear kinblas
[11:10:45] <_nickel> toddparker: maybe we should all take a pass today and see what we see
[11:10:46] <toddparker> anything big?
[11:10:51] <toddparker> cool
[11:10:57] <toddparker> i created a 1.0 milestone
[11:11:50] <toddparker> RC1
[11:11:56] <toddparker> so we can start tagging
[11:12:31] <toddparker> but i think if you guys have time to start tagging to this milestone and tweaking severity, that would be a huge help
[11:12:39] <toddparker> i'll spend some time later today/tonight too
[11:12:55] <_nickel> definitely
[11:12:59] <_nickel> I'll do that this afternoon
[11:13:01] <toddparker> sweet
[11:13:08] <_nickel> want to make sure we're focusing on the important stuff
[11:13:14] <toddparker> agrred
[11:13:17] <_nickel> kinblas: gseguin: sooner is better than later with that eh?
[11:13:23] <toddparker> it's hard with 400 issues to get your hands around things
[11:13:41] <kinblas> _nickel: +1
[11:13:56] <toddparker> yeah
[11:13:58] <gseguin> _nickel: +1
[11:14:08] <toddparker> seems like you guys are super focused right now which is great
[11:14:09] <_nickel> toddparker: you've always done so well we just figured you were enjoying it by now lol
[11:14:22] <toddparker> making sure we're using your time on the biggest ticket items is very important
[11:14:58] <kinblas> @toddparker: speaking of big-ticket ... what about the blinky bugs
[11:15:00] <toddparker> problem is that it takes so long to look thru them, that I do it in small patches
[11:15:06] <toddparker> can't look at 'em all on one sitting
[11:15:17] <toddparker> yeah kinblas
[11:15:32] <kinblas> @toddparker: it sometimes takes us longer because we tend to deep dive to figure out if they are real or  user-error
[11:15:38] <toddparker> from what i hear from scott and you, that really isn't fixable with the current approach
[11:15:40] <toddparker> right?
[11:16:00] <toddparker> …you mean blink page transitions, right?
[11:16:03] <kinblas> @toddparker: devices just aren't there yet, and the code gets much more complicated ....
[11:16:08] <toddparker> rights
[11:16:11] <toddparker> rights
[11:16:17] <toddparker> *right*
[11:16:35] <toddparker> so i think the message is the native overflow is the future
[11:16:35] * _nickel will be back in a second. Nature is calling.
[11:16:42] <kinblas> @toddparker: yeah the switch to transitions ... I think we can still look into specific cases, but making things smooth everywhere just isn't going to happen
[11:16:45] <toddparker> and we've down what we can
[11:16:52] <toddparker> based on current devices
[11:17:04] <toddparker> which is unfortunate because honeycomb is especially ugly
[11:17:15] <toddparker> are there any unturned stones there?
[11:17:28] <kinblas> @toddparker: but I will continue conversations with the Android browser folks
[11:17:40] <kinblas> I believe the guy I need to talk to gets back from vcation today
[11:17:48] <kinblas> I just won't let it dominate my time
[11:17:52] <toddparker> and i think transitions will happen, just closer to the end of the year so we can point to a significant improvement in platform support
[11:17:54] <kinblas> so we can get stuff done
[11:18:05] <toddparker> cool, thanks kinblas
[11:18:14] <toddparker> yeah, having all 3 of you bug fixing is huge
[11:18:15] <_nickel> I only have one issue to ask about
[11:18:22] <_nickel> https://github.com/jquery/jquery-mobile/issues/2217#issuecomment-2094243
[11:18:25] <toddparker> scott will be looking at this stuff when he's back next week
[11:18:45] <toddparker> _nickel: the quick and dirty?
[11:18:49] <_nickel> yah
[11:18:52] <kinblas> oh yeah
[11:18:54] <kinblas> one thing about that
[11:19:03] <kinblas> we need to choose our names and placement carefully
[11:19:10] <kinblas> we'll be saddled with that for a long time
[11:19:12] <_nickel> indeed we do
[11:19:20] <kinblas> so make it count, and make it something we can work with later :-)
[11:19:25] <_nickel> kk
[11:19:27] <toddparker> no pressure
[11:19:30] <kinblas> lol
[11:19:34] * kinblas has faith in _nickel
[11:19:36] <_nickel> hahah
[11:19:46] <toddparker> _nickel: glad i'm not you
[11:19:49] <toddparker> i'd hide
[11:19:53] <_nickel> hah
[11:19:57] <_nickel> hard problems are fun
[11:20:16] <toddparker> so we're in agreement that we should add in the quick fix, but we'll make sure you all give it a thorough review
[11:20:18] <kinblas> @toddparker: oh I have another question
[11:20:24] <toddparker> ya kinblas
[11:20:24] <kinblas> deprecated stuff
[11:20:37] <kinblas> can we throw out stuff we want to depracate
[11:20:38] <kinblas> ??
[11:20:48] <kinblas> example the old changePage() arg calling compatibility code
[11:20:49] <_nickel> "throw out"
[11:20:52] <_nickel> as in suggest?
[11:20:57] <_nickel> ah
[11:21:00] <kinblas> as in select and delete
[11:21:10] <_nickel> don't we need to deprecate it first?
[11:21:12] <kinblas> :-)
[11:21:12] <_nickel> lol
[11:21:28] <kinblas> the old alpha changePage API was depracated
[11:21:30] <kinblas> a while ago
[11:21:43] <_nickel> so its stuff that "has been deprecated"
[11:21:45] <_nickel> sorry
[11:21:50] <kinblas> other examples are the recent renaming of beforechangepage and changepage events
[11:21:50] <_nickel> I was confused
[11:22:02] <toddparker> yeah, i think we can delete stuff that was deprecated in alpha/beta
[11:22:03] <kinblas> not sure if folks are using those because they were part of the nav re-worrk
[11:22:14] <kinblas> but scott wanted  me to rename them
[11:22:18] <toddparker> that was B1?
[11:22:24] <kinblas> yeah B1
[11:22:25] <kinblas> they are now
[11:22:29] <kinblas> pagebeforechange
[11:22:33] <kinblas> and pagechange
[11:22:42] <kinblas> to be consistent with the other page* events
[11:22:50] <toddparker> those name changes were in B3, right?
[11:22:56] <kinblas> heh yeah
[11:23:12] <gseguin> one thing about bugs in general, if there is a page that tells users how to file bugs we should put in <strong><blink> to provide a jsbin/jsfiddle
[11:23:28] <toddparker> i guess that when we hit RC1, it should match 1.0 so if we want to rip stuff out, do it now
[11:23:31] <kinblas> gseguin: Ugh YES!!
[11:23:39] <toddparker> seriously
[11:23:44] <toddparker> wish we could have a issue template
[11:23:52] <toddparker> 90% of my work is asking for details and test pages
[11:23:56] <gseguin> yeah
[11:24:01] <kinblas> @toddparker: getting the pertinent info from folks is like pulling teeth
[11:24:24] <toddparker> maybe can have a bot that looks for new issue emails with of links for jsbin* or jsfiddle*
[11:24:27] <toddparker> yep
[11:24:36] <eddiemonge> have an expiration date then. if they dont provide enough details and/or test cases, close the issue after x amount of time
[11:24:46] <toddparker> bug report formats are always the same info, dunno why people are so lazy
[11:24:54] <toddparker> i do that eddiemonge
[11:25:05] <toddparker> i set it to "unconfirmed" when I ask
[11:25:11] <gseguin> the bot thing is a good idea
[11:25:12] <toddparker> and I close about a month later
[11:26:13] <toddparker> on deprecations, if there is a feature that is very small code-wise but potentially very break-worthy, that would  be the only case to leave it in for 1.0
[11:26:26] <toddparker> normally, little of this would be a concern for a 1.0
[11:26:56] <toddparker> but with a half dozen books and a ton of people using this, I feel like we need to be careful
[11:28:07] <kinblas> @toddparker: do you have a running list of the authors
[11:28:16] <kinblas> it might be good to ping them of potential breaking changes
[11:29:59] <gseguin> eddiemonge: I noticed that http://code.jquery.com/mobile/latest/ doesn't have latest
[11:30:15] <eddiemonge> it should be fixed now
[11:30:20] <gseguin> ok cool
[11:30:23] <gseguin> thanks!
[11:30:30] <kinblas> eddiemonge: gseguin noticed this lastnight
[11:30:39] <kinblas> it's been fixed since then
[11:30:47] <kinblas> ??
[11:30:51] <_nickel> eddiemonge: is there a delay?
[11:31:23] <eddiemonge> oh hmm thats not good
[11:31:33] <eddiemonge> there should be at most like a 2 minute delay
[11:31:41] <eddiemonge> between git and latest
[11:31:55] <eddiemonge> wait i take that back, theres also the cdn propagtion delay
[11:32:15] <_nickel> eddiemonge: cool just curious
[11:32:21] <toddparker> kinblas: good idea on the authors
[11:32:21] <toddparker> hope they read the blog posts :)
[11:32:30] <gseguin> eddiemonge: right now I get Date: Thu Sep 8 14:06:02 2011 -0700
[11:32:33] <gseguin> on latest
[11:32:47] <toddparker> WUT
[11:32:50] <kinblas> @toddparker: perhaps in this week's blog post, we put in a "book authors checkin with us" notice
[11:32:55] <toddparker> yeah
[11:33:05] <toddparker> i know who they are…just a handful of people
[11:33:08] <eddiemonge> hmm code.jquery.com looks like its having issues
[11:33:31] <eddiemonge> toddparker: but do you know the ones who are writing books that haven't been released as well?
[11:34:12] <kinblas> eddiemonge: I don't think there have been any official releases yet
[11:34:24] <kinblas> the Oreilly one is in advance preview
[11:34:37] * kinblas was considering buying into that one just to see what it was about
[11:35:28] <gseguin> brb
[11:35:55] <toddparker> i have the o'rreilly
[11:35:58] <toddparker> it's good
[11:36:01] <toddparker> but B1
[11:36:04] <toddparker> and very short
[11:36:13] <toddparker> the elated e-book is nice
[11:36:24] <toddparker> Matt (author) keep it up-to-date
[11:36:33] <toddparker> he's also helping us with docs
[11:37:06] <toddparker> so two more topics
[11:37:10] <toddparker> download builder
[11:37:28] <toddparker> _nickel and eddiemonge -do you want to help scott put this together?
[11:37:33] <toddparker> we need it for 1.0
[11:37:34] <eddiemonge> yeah
[11:37:42] <eddiemonge> do we have tech specs or reqs for it?
[11:37:44] <toddparker> even if it's just a simple form that concats files
[11:37:54] <_nickel> sure thing
[11:38:01] <_nickel> I take it its going to be in php?
[11:38:09] <_nickel> we just need to sort out whats optional
[11:38:10] <eddiemonge> and for the CDN issue, its a CDN issue, not a git-jqm.com script issue
[11:38:11] <toddparker> could be for sure
[11:38:24] * _nickel is not experienced with ph
[11:38:28] <_nickel> php
[11:38:44] <toddparker> eddiemonge: what language should we use for infra?
[11:38:45] <kinblas> @toddparker: is that a *MUST* for 1.0 versus having it just after? I'm just scared we won't fix as many bugs :-)
[11:38:46] <_nickel> especially the oo additions
[11:38:58] <toddparker> hoping eddiemonge can help
[11:39:02] <_nickel> I kind of agree with kin actually
[11:39:10] <_nickel> well
[11:39:17] <_nickel> why don't we see whats going to be involved
[11:39:21] <_nickel> like options
[11:39:30] <eddiemonge> php is fine. but we could do it statically. i have this strange concept in mind for download builders that i have to test out
[11:39:32] <_nickel> when we talk with scott
[11:39:39] <kinblas> @toddparker: this is about building a custom jqm.js right?
[11:39:44] <kinblas> just what is needed?
[11:40:01] <toddparker> yep
[11:40:06] <kinblas> what is really optional?
[11:40:10] <_nickel> kinblas: I imagine a web interface to a script that picks and chooses the plugins
[11:40:16] <_nickel> pushstate, custom selects
[11:40:17] <toddparker> like jqUI
[11:40:19] <_nickel> at the least
[11:40:28] <kinblas> heh 2 options
[11:40:30] <_nickel> form widgets?
[11:40:34] <toddparker> core / forms / list views / collapsible
[11:40:35] <_nickel> what if you don't need the sliders
[11:40:42] <_nickel> lotso stuff
[11:40:46] <toddparker> or we could break it down more into what form elements, etc
[11:40:55] <kinblas> ok
[11:41:01] <toddparker> UI gets to the widget level
[11:41:10] * kinblas was picturing folks clamoring for a way to not use navigation
[11:41:12] <toddparker> we could even have core widget / extras
[11:41:17] <toddparker> select + custom menu
[11:41:20] <toddparker> etc.
[11:41:42] <toddparker> kinblas …or just use the navigation :)
[11:41:53] <kinblas> lol
[11:41:56] <kinblas> ok
[11:42:04] * kinblas notices oreilly has 2 jQuery Mobile books
[11:42:07] <_nickel> why don't we keep it simple for a first release
[11:42:19] <toddparker> i was saying that we could even just build a few presets: core, forms, lists
[11:42:25] <_nickel> I agree
[11:42:26] <toddparker> or core, widgets
[11:42:38] <_nickel> and hopefully eddie can help us while we fix bugs
[11:42:40] <toddparker> if we don't want to get the whole builder done
[11:42:43] <kinblas> @toddparker: ok, I just wanted to flag the resources (people) thing
[11:42:44] * _nickel is hopeful
[11:42:49] <toddparker> scott seems to think this simple
[11:42:55] <toddparker> totally agree
[11:43:07] <toddparker> you guys should get distracted on this
[11:43:12] <kinblas> lol
[11:43:16] <eddiemonge> it should be pretty simple
[11:43:20] <toddparker> if eddiemonge and scottjehl can jam on this
[11:43:23] <kinblas> @toddparker: throw it on the pile
[11:43:29] <toddparker> second item is themeroller
[11:43:36] <kinblas> what's that? :-)
[11:43:41] <toddparker> i need to have scott help me rig that up and get it ready to go
[11:43:49] <toddparker> uhhh...nothin
[11:44:02] <kinblas> btw, we need to check it in somewhere
[11:44:06] <toddparker> so scott may be working on these other itesm
[11:44:06] <eddiemonge> will it follow the new jqui themeroller?
[11:44:12] <toddparker> 
[11:44:16] <eddiemonge> CDN is back up btw
[11:44:31] <toddparker> cool eddiemonge
[11:44:39] <toddparker> new ui theme roller?
[11:44:59] <eddiemonge> yeah because the one that jqui is currently using is killing our servers
[11:45:18] <eddiemonge> well not currently but it will be in a while again
[11:45:21] <toddparker> ah
[11:45:23] <kinblas> eddiemonge: in terms of load?
[11:45:29] <toddparker> so the new TR wil JS
[11:45:31] <toddparker> is JS
[11:45:40] <toddparker> so t can be static
[11:45:47] <toddparker> we're not generating images
[11:45:47] <eddiemonge> kinblas: no, in terms of disk space
[11:45:51] <toddparker> ah
[11:45:58] <gseguin> back
[11:46:08] <kinblas> eddiemonge: ah ok, we're not doing fancy image generation and zipping
[11:46:09] <toddparker> the only feature that will impact the server is the ability to email a short URL of a theme
[11:46:20] <kinblas> @toddparker: right
[11:46:22] <toddparker> so we need to write a file to the server and store it for 30 days (or less)
[11:46:34] <toddparker> not sure how much it will be used
[11:46:47] <toddparker> but we're not hitting the server like the UI TR
[11:46:48] <eddiemonge> yeah that wont work
[11:46:52] <toddparker> all client-side
[11:46:58] <toddparker> the saving?
[11:47:04] <eddiemonge> it needs to be stored indefinitely so you can come back to it and even share it
[11:47:23] <toddparker> i think we can have expiration dates
[11:47:26] <eddiemonge> itll be saved but it needs to be done more efficiently than the current jqUI one
[11:47:27] <toddparker> just need to be clear on it
[11:47:31] <kinblas> @toddparker: +1
[11:47:47] <toddparker> b/c you can import an uncompressed theme and edit it later
[11:48:11] <toddparker> compressed themes (minified) strip comments so you should keep the uncompressed
[11:48:33] <toddparker> i'd like to loop eddiemonge in on this soon as he can help with setting it up
[11:48:44] <toddparker> eddiemonge: you have some time next week?
[11:49:01] <eddiemonge> yeah
[11:49:20] <toddparker> cool
[11:49:33] <toddparker> alright all - anything else we need to discuss here?
[11:50:04] <eddiemonge> one thing i would like to discuss
[11:50:26] <eddiemonge> if it all possible for 1.0 or RCs is cutting the actual repo size down from the 100mb it is to what it actually should be
[11:50:46] <eddiemonge> under 10mb
[11:51:09] <toddparker> sure - who wants to look at this?
[11:51:21] <toddparker> it's the history and branches adding weight, right?
[11:51:22] <eddiemonge> i know what the problem is but im not sure the best way to fix it
[11:51:35] <eddiemonge> its that git stores the binary for the old psds
[11:51:50] <eddiemonge> and to get rid of them you have to rebase or something like that which will change a lot of history
[11:52:10] <kinblas> I thought git was supposed to be efficient?
[11:52:12] <_nickel> eddiemonge: gc doesn't clean that up?
[11:52:17] <kinblas> and only make copies when necessary
[11:52:19] <eddiemonge> it is for text files, not binary files
[11:52:32] <kinblas> they don't hash binary files?
[11:52:36] <eddiemonge> _nickel: there are side effects
[11:52:49] <_nickel> eddiemonge: to what, running a manual gc?
[11:52:57] <_nickel> I really don't know, I'm asking
[11:53:06] <kinblas> we don't have any of those files in the repo anymore anyways?
[11:53:21] <_nickel> makes sense that it needs to keep them
[11:53:25] <_nickel> I'll look into it
[11:53:36] <_nickel> eddiemonge: toddparker: I'd like to larn how to deal with it
[11:53:47] <eddiemonge> yeah i briefly looked at it but forgot about it
[11:54:02] <_nickel> larn == learning with a southern drawl?
[11:54:04] <_nickel> learn
[11:54:05] <eddiemonge> but with 1.0 coming up i think having a repo 1/10 the size of the current one would be good
[11:54:15] <toddparker> agreed
[11:54:27] <gseguin> +1
[11:54:34] <toddparker> i have some design files (binary) in the design folder. i can pull them all out and delete and we can kill that history
[11:54:36] <_nickel> is that binary data in there extremely old
[11:54:43] <_nickel> I think this will mean trimming history :(
[11:54:44] <toddparker> not really
[11:54:53] <_nickel> hmm ok
[11:54:56] <_nickel> I'll look into it
[11:55:14] <eddiemonge> _nickel: yeah thats what i was talking about
[11:55:15] <kinblas> are we talking about the old illustrator and php files which came out to about 80megs?
[11:55:22] <eddiemonge> yup
[11:55:36] <eddiemonge> well illustrator and photoshop
[11:55:39] <kinblas> so the repository still dups them even though they aren't in the tree anymore?
[11:55:46] <eddiemonge> the php files dont matter
[11:55:47] <_nickel> it has to retain the history
[11:55:49] * kinblas notes he meant psd not php
[11:55:53] <_nickel> how else would you get the files back?
[11:56:08] <kinblas> _nickel: I know but it's not contantly dup'ing them right?
[11:56:18] <kinblas> it only dup'd them for past branches
[11:56:21] <kinblas> etc
[11:57:04] <eddiemonge> yeah but git stores the full binary so any change made is kept in history.
[11:57:55] <eddiemonge> its all in the .git/objects/pack folder
[11:58:16] <_nickel> thats where git gets its speed
[11:58:42] <gseguin> http://progit.org/book/ch9-7.html#removing_objects
[11:59:58] <toddparker> so should i kill the design folder?
[12:01:17] <gseguin> maybe move it to another repo
[12:02:53] <toddparker> sure
[12:02:59] <toddparker> i could move it to FG's
[12:03:14] <toddparker> eddiemonge: can you keep this conversation going after this meeting?
[12:03:23] <toddparker> i'd like a higher repo
[12:03:26] <eddiemonge> yeah
[12:03:45] <toddparker> tighter
[12:03:46] <toddparker> cool
[12:03:47] <toddparker> thanks
[12:03:49] <toddparker> alright guys
[12:03:54] <toddparker> it's a wrap
[12:04:01] <gseguin> see you on -dev
[12:04:05] <toddparker> ok all
[12:04:08] <toddparker> thanks!