[09:00:02] <jzaefferer> about MEETING TIME
[09:00:26] <jzaefferer> or are we still DST-confused?
[09:03:09] <jzaefferer> tada
[09:03:12] <rworth> no, it's time
[09:05:34] <scott_gonzalez> danheberden: any infrastructure updates?
[09:05:46] <scott_gonzalez> view.jqueryui.com is back to the old URL structure :-)
[09:05:49] <scott_gonzalez> not sure how did that
[09:06:11] <scott_gonzalez> oh, that reminds me...we really need (immediate) feedback about changes like that
[09:06:32] <scott_gonzalez> jzaefferer also suggested having a staging server so that testing does need to be done on the live site that people are using
[09:07:10] <jzaefferer> yeah, the code is in a repo, so set up view-staging.jqueryui.com or something like that where we can test updates
[09:07:23] <jzaefferer> we're relying way to much on this piece
[09:07:48] <jzaefferer> breaking dozens of links in blog posts and the wiki for a week isn't cool
[09:09:10] <jzaefferer> is clarkbox around?
[09:09:47] <scott_gonzalez> is anyone around?
[09:10:04] <rworth> me
[09:10:15] <kborchers> I am sort of ... In another meeting
[09:12:43] <scott_gonzalez> let's move on
[09:13:09] <rworth> no update from me on docs, may see some activity this week
[09:14:42] <jzaefferer> I wonder if we should just put that on ice for now, get back to it once everything else on 1.9 is done
[09:14:56] <jzaefferer> we haven't seen any docs progress in months, so why bother with it each week?
[09:15:34] <jzaefferer> seems to complex for a single dev with limited time to make any progress
[09:15:58] <rworth> we're quite close, what's left is not complex and will not take a ton of time
[09:16:30] <jzaefferer> well, let's see what we can get done tomorrow then
[09:16:50] <jzaefferer> if its so close, we can get it done, otherwise just put it on ice
[09:18:00] <jzaefferer> anyway, NEXT
[09:19:21] <jzaefferer> gnarf: testing?
[09:20:47] <jzaefferer> guess not
[09:21:11] <jzaefferer> there's been some activity on interactions, scott_gonzalez or rworth, could you provide an overview?
[09:22:00] <scott_gonzalez> Dave started a droppable implementation
[09:22:12] <scott_gonzalez> hoping to review it soon
[09:22:42] <rworth> we discussed scroll speed an sensitivity on the draggable wiki page this week, seem to have consensus
[09:24:14] <jzaefferer> is that stuff configurable?
[09:24:21] <scott_gonzalez> it is right now
[09:24:27] <scott_gonzalez> the consensus is to remove the configuration
[09:24:31] <jzaefferer> okay
[09:24:34] <scott_gonzalez> and just have the built-in behavior be good
[09:24:40] <jzaefferer> +123
[09:24:56] <scott_gonzalez> I just removed all the comments on the wiki and added a new comment that sums up the discussion
[09:24:56] <jzaefferer> more flipfit
[09:25:04] <jzaefferer> which we should rename to "awesome"
[09:25:14] <jzaefferer> or sumsin
[09:26:26] <jzaefferer> scott_gonzalez: did you look at Hans' tabs key handler code?
[09:27:05] <scott_gonzalez> yes, I cleaned it up a bit, but there's still a lot of work left before it can land in master
[09:27:15] <jzaefferer> where is it right now?
[09:27:47] <scott_gonzalez> https://github.com/scottgonzalez/jquery-ui/tree/tabs-keyboard
[09:27:53] <scott_gonzalez> this was discussed last week
[09:28:23] <scott_gonzalez> right now there's only one important commit to look at in that branch
[09:28:28] <scott_gonzalez> https://github.com/scottgonzalez/jquery-ui/commit/9cee2602e6b5d4bfff21e93b3d2b594a5f8f9e2e
[09:28:28] <socialhapy> ★ Commit on jquery-ui by scottgonzalez (1w, 1d ago): Tabs: Initialze port of Hans' keyboard work.
[09:28:35] <jzaefferer> okay
[09:28:47] <jzaefferer> I'd prefer commits like that to go into a branch on our own repo
[09:28:56] <jzaefferer> that was I'll get the irc notifications etc.
[09:29:15] <scott_gonzalez> I didn't want anyone to try to merge this branch
[09:29:21] <scott_gonzalez> I'm committing stuff that should never land in master
[09:29:31] <jzaefferer> mhm, okay
[09:29:51] <jzaefferer> "we deal with the same nonsense in other widgets, like autocomplete"
[09:29:52] <scott_gonzalez> like this change to the default demo: https://github.com/scottgonzalez/jquery-ui/commit/ca674a21c672d403e0a6d52b485af3ca0ae8839d
[09:29:53] <socialhapy> ★ Commit on jquery-ui by scottgonzalez (1w, 1d ago): Tabs: Changed default demo for easier testing of keyboard handling.
[09:30:22] <jzaefferer> you could make that a visual test?
[09:30:31] <jzaefferer> well, nevermind
[09:30:41] <jzaefferer> if you wanna discuss the open issues, let me know
[09:30:57] <jzaefferer> so far I had no idea you started working on it :-)
[09:31:50] <jzaefferer> this view is quite telling: https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/branches - looks like we should just delete "panel" :p
[09:32:14] <jzaefferer> not sure what widget-animation and testanimation are about or why they still exist
[09:32:48] <scott_gonzalez> wow, I really suck at wrong the word "initial"
[09:33:02] <scott_gonzalez> I apparently constantly write "initialize" instead
[09:33:02] <jzaefferer> scott_gonzalez, what are the 1.7 issues blocking 1.8.17?
[09:33:15] <jzaefferer> haha
[09:33:21] <jzaefferer> that's why we use "init" :p
[09:33:23] <scott_gonzalez> animated slider is broken because percent-based animations don't work in 1.7
[09:33:42] <scott_gonzalez> and hoverintent for tabs/accordion doesn't work because hover* events don't work in 1.7
[09:33:49] <jzaefferer> I didn't see that in the changelog /o\
[09:34:15] <scott_gonzalez> why would new bugs be in the changelog?
[09:34:32] <jzaefferer> its a feature, not a bug...
[09:34:40] <jzaefferer> well, any response from core team on that?
[09:34:52] <scott_gonzalez> they're both fixed in mater
[09:34:54] <scott_gonzalez> *master
[09:35:07] <jzaefferer> ah, nice
[09:35:58] <rworth> so, yes, we should wait for 1.7.1? Also, do we have an eta?
[09:36:38] <scott_gonzalez> no ETA yet, but I assume soon
[09:36:48] <rworth> also, we should probably run through all our demos to make sure we haven't missed any others
[09:36:51] <jzaefferer> a week or two
[09:36:58] <rworth> and I guess best would be against master, not 1.7.0
[09:38:14] <rworth> jzaefferer: would be good if you have a chance to look at https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/pull/519
[09:38:15] <socialhapy> ★ Pull request on jquery-ui by kborchers (1w, 1d ago): Menu: Allow arbitrary structures not dependant on parent/child relationships.
[09:38:27] <jzaefferer> yeah, still have that open
[09:39:14] <rworth> scott_gonzalez: I don't recall, was there a plan to work through some PR queue in advance of tomorrow, or will that start tomorrow?
[09:39:55] <scott_gonzalez> we were going to try to, but it hasn't happened yet
[09:47:19] <jzaefferer> well, that's it for UI then
[10:04:41] <brado23> hey
[10:04:49] <rworth> hey
[10:05:06] <borismoore> hello
[10:05:45] <rworth> let's get started
[10:06:24] <rworth> Jörn and I posted a proposed API and syntax spec for Template on http://wiki.jqueryui.com/w/page/37898666/Template
[10:06:44] <rworth> looking for feedback on that
[10:07:06] <borismoore> ok, I'll take a look
[10:07:08] <rworth> we'll have more time to discuss in depth tomorrow
[10:07:10] <rworth> borismoore: thanks
[10:07:34] <rworth> would be great if you're prepared to discuss in detail tomorrow
[10:07:46] <borismoore> my time is limited between now and tomorrow meeting, so I'm not sure if I can be ready or not
[10:07:59] <borismoore> I'll do what I can
[10:08:02] <rworth> ok
[10:08:15] <borismoore> But it may have to be the followup we spoke of with Joern
[10:08:17] <jzaefferer> the idea is that whatever we adopt as the official template plugin needs to match that API, and not contain any more then that; additional features need to make it into the spec first
[10:08:45] <borismoore> I'll look at it in that light
[10:08:59] <borismoore> but we need to be sure then we have correct scenario coverage
[10:09:18] <jzaefferer> we don't want to build something that people can switch to from jquery-tmpl without having to change anything; anyone can build that, we don't prevent it
[10:09:35] <borismoore> sure, they have to change things
[10:09:37] <jzaefferer> but we're restricting what we support, in order to be able to support the code in the long run
[10:09:46] <borismoore> understood
[10:10:11] <borismoore> that's why we need to consider scenarios covered by jquery tmpl, and include or node in our coverage
[10:10:16] <borismoore> or not
[10:11:21] <jzaefferer> yeah, we can be explicit about what we don't support in the spec
[10:11:42] <borismoore> I'll also work to get minimal docs on what jsrender is, or will be in my current plan, for the API
[10:12:00] <borismoore> so we can see what the diff is if any
[10:12:05] <jzaefferer> sounds good
[10:12:29] <jzaefferer> if we can align our targets, all the better
[10:12:35] <borismoore> right
[10:13:32] <rworth> latest PR from brado23 is also on agenda for tomorrow's mtg
[10:13:51] <brado23> sure.  that works
[10:14:04] <jzaefferer> well, if we can land that before the meeting, all the better
[10:14:19] <jzaefferer> I don't see anything controversial in there
[10:14:23] <brado23> either way
[10:14:53] <rworth> ok
[10:14:56] <brado23> I'll work through jzaefferer 's feedback....leave it to you guys to determine when to merge
[10:14:58] <borismoore> I need to study it too in the light of jsrender and jsviews, if there are any implications there
[10:15:21] <brado23> borismoore  I doubt there is
[10:15:29] <jzaefferer> yeah, its pretty boring really
[10:15:34] <brado23> :)
[10:15:50] <jzaefferer> important, but boring :-)
[10:15:54] <borismoore> e.g. suggested soft dependency of jsrender on observer, but that is maybe separated from these areas from Brad
[10:16:19] <jzaefferer> so yeah, brado23, if you can make a pass through and update the PR, we should be able to land that very soon
[10:16:20] <brado23> the PR is just tweaks to the pre-Observer world
[10:16:32] <brado23> jzaefferer NP
[10:17:05] <rworth> borismoore: such a dependency, even if soft would not be consistent with our proposed minimal spec on Template, but I'll leave that to your pending review
[10:17:31] <jzaefferer> should include the constructor on http://wiki.jqueryui.com/w/page/47179578/Observable
[10:17:32] <borismoore> yeah, I want to avoid the dependency, too, if possible
[10:19:59] <jzaefferer> brado23, maybe inline editors are interesting for Upshot, this shows a few editors in action: http://view.jqueryui.com/editable/demos/editable/editors.html
[10:20:22] <brado23> thx...I'll take a look
[10:22:08] <jzaefferer> generally, we're getting closer to finishing up the remaining stage 3 tasks; once we're there, we want to do a preview release (like the 1.9 milestone releases), then start on stage 4
[10:22:44] <brado23> sounds good
[10:25:30] <rworth> anything else?
[10:25:36] <jzaefferer> currently it looks like we're running out of funding before we can finish stage 4, so we want to get at least that preview release out before 1.9 and 2.0 are done and 2.1 can start focussing on grid again; unless of course we can get more grid funding
[10:26:48] <jzaefferer> that's all I got for now :-)
[10:27:12] <jzaefferer> well
[10:27:16] <brado23> Skype meeting tomorrow mornign then?
[10:27:23] <jzaefferer> I'll be meeting with Rafael tomorrow to review the progress on Editable
[10:27:23] <brado23> PST
[10:27:30] <jzaefferer> yeah
[10:27:34] <rworth> talk to you then
[10:27:39] <borismoore> What time tomorrow? I am free 10:30 pst
[10:27:47] <jzaefferer> then that!
[10:27:51] <brado23> that's 3 min from now tomorrow
[10:27:54] <rworth> yeah
[10:27:56] <brado23> sure
[10:28:00] <borismoore> k
[10:28:04] <jzaefferer> I'll send an invite
[10:28:36] <brado23> cya
[10:29:32] <jzaefferer> brado23, ping me or comment on the PR once you push more commits
[10:29:42] <jzaefferer> no automatic "new commits on PR" notifications :(
[10:29:53] <brado23> sure. np