[09:02:33] <mikesherov> hi
[09:02:36] <DaveMethvin> hey there
[09:02:59] <DaveMethvin> who else is around?
[09:03:56] <DaveMethvin> well looks like just you and me for now mikesherov
[09:04:03] <mikesherov> GREAT
[09:04:03] <gibson042> present
[09:04:36] <DaveMethvin> okay, now the party is startin
[09:05:12] <DaveMethvin> so i did update the agenda with some discussion points
[09:05:22] <DaveMethvin> mostly around timing of the releases
[09:05:35] <DaveMethvin> we can land a few things and put out a beta for 2.0
[09:05:48] <DaveMethvin> beyond that we should decide on timing for 1.10 vs 2.0
[09:07:08] <DaveMethvin> so the idea i was gonna throw out here was that we might want to ship 1.10 in january next year and only make 2.0 final then
[09:07:33] <DaveMethvin> mobile stayed in beta for a LONG time and ppl used it
[09:08:09] <DaveMethvin> i don't think we plan to do anything drastic but if we ship 2.0 mid year or something it will inevitably get out of sync for one reason or the other
[09:08:18] <DaveMethvin> or we'd have to ship 1.10 mid year too
[09:08:22] <DaveMethvin> which i think is too soon
[09:08:34] <gibson042> what drives the timing of when we can release 1.10?
[09:09:03] <DaveMethvin> nothing in particular but if we put out 1.10 in a month or two most people won't have even seen 1.9
[09:09:41] <DaveMethvin> and also it's kind of unfair to do a deprecation cycle that fast
[09:10:12] <DaveMethvin> if we didn't want to make any changes to the documented interfaces (e.g., leave andSelf) then we might be justified in doing it soooner
[09:10:54] <DaveMethvin> we're pretty far behind on docs so I'd like to get that cleaned up before we do another release
[09:11:11] <DaveMethvin> a lot of the stuff in the upgrade guide hasn't made it to api.jquery.co
[09:11:26] <gibson042> the other points I think we be addressed by a migrate-1.10 plugin
[09:11:36] <gibson042> but that last one rings true to me
[09:12:03] <DaveMethvin> i think the migrate plugin already looks for andSelf
[09:12:19] <DaveMethvin> we'll just add whatever to the mix there
[09:12:20] <mikesherov> i'm kind of surprised we're talking 1.10
[09:12:25] <gibson042> ah, yeah
[09:12:30] <mikesherov> seems like a short lifecycle
[09:12:39] <DaveMethvin> yeah that's my thought too
[09:12:45] <DaveMethvin> we don't want to wear people out
[09:13:02] <DaveMethvin> let's fix what we need to fix in 1.9.2
[09:14:15] <DaveMethvin> so mainly i would like people to use 2.0
[09:14:26] <DaveMethvin> we got a bit of feedback but i feel like  ppl are waiting for the release
[09:14:37] <DaveMethvin> which just means we'll find out the stuff we broke after 2.0
[09:14:49] <DaveMethvin> and then our version correspondence will be out the window again :D
[09:15:16] <DaveMethvin> so a longer beta can help that if people understand the beta is pretty useful right now
[09:15:26] <DaveMethvin> and that "waiting" consists of months
[09:15:51] <DaveMethvin> it's always hard to out-reverse-psychology people
[09:16:32] <gibson042> I think they (we) would need a timeframe
[09:16:54] <DaveMethvin> there is still a lot of upheaval in the plugin community from 1.9 so i don't think we should be talking 1.10
[09:16:58] <gibson042> e.g., expect 1.10 and 2.0 in <month>
[09:17:24] <DaveMethvin> well, what do we have that needs to go there?
[09:17:37] <DaveMethvin> that list may dictate a faster pace
[09:17:42] <gibson042> I was thinking very small divergence between 1.9 and 1.10
[09:18:03] <DaveMethvin> we can update the migrate plugin like, now, to incorporate any decisions we make
[09:18:23] <DaveMethvin> which would help for those people who haven't yet moved to 1.9
[09:18:37] <DaveMethvin> I would say no earlier than the fall
[09:18:52] <DaveMethvin> and January next year may still be the right time
[09:19:15] <DaveMethvin> it depends on what we have in the pipe
[09:19:49] <DaveMethvin> let's put a list in the meeting notes
[09:20:00] <DaveMethvin> what were the items in your email gibson042?
[09:20:44] <gibson042> so, API changes:
[09:20:51] <gibson042> * http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/13283 remove .andSelf
[09:21:19] <gibson042> http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/13417 .domManip should convert empty strings to text nodes instead of ignoring
[09:22:00] <gibson042> (additive only) create special.click._default for suppressing native .click on <a> elements
[09:22:27] <gibson042> (additive only) http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/12838 hook point for domManip synchronous AJAX
[09:23:10] <gibson042> and probably (https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1163#commitcomment-2582368 - no ticket yet) allow multiple args for .replaceWith
[09:23:10] <b-ot> gibson042: Pull request #1163 by markraddatz (2w 3d ago): Handle the case of an empty string. Fixes #13401.
[09:23:41] <DaveMethvin> I think we could land the hook point even in 1.9.2
[09:23:48] <DaveMethvin> it's an internal thing
[09:23:53] <gibson042> ah, also changing Event.isTrigger from boolean to bitmask
[09:24:59] <DaveMethvin> damn i do not like this irc client today
[09:25:03] <gibson042> it's cleaner if new interfaces (even semi-private ones) sync with at least minor version bumps, but I could see that one too
[09:25:03] <DaveMethvin> it won't let me copy text
[09:26:20] <DaveMethvin> what did we decide on manipulating text nodes? I think that's a place where we wanted 1.x/2.x to diverge
[09:26:34] <DaveMethvin> we would just need to document these things clearly
[09:27:56] <DaveMethvin> mainly i just don't want people whining about differences in the undocumented stuf
[09:28:05] <DaveMethvin> like unusual use of text nodes
[09:28:11] <DaveMethvin> where we never guaranteed results
[09:28:29] <DaveMethvin> btw did you see the guy who wanted to animate a CSSStyleElement?
[09:28:49] <gibson042> ugh; yeah
[09:28:50] <DaveMethvin> THAT kind of stuff
[09:29:10] <DaveMethvin> perhaps we need to just write out exactly what can be contained by $() and what methods work with it
[09:29:31] <DaveMethvin> just a big table
[09:29:40] <_orkel> did'nt you guys commit support for text nodes in traversing module?
[09:30:00] <_orkel>  i was sick the last two weeks, so i miss couple of things
[09:30:36] <DaveMethvin> 1.9/2.0 still behave differently on text nodes for some cases I htink
[09:30:47] <DaveMethvin> but i can't remember the cases
[09:31:18] <_orkel> mm, so we support them?
[09:31:46] <DaveMethvin> I don't *want* to support them but we have to some extent in the past
[09:32:00] <DaveMethvin> and gibson042 is a textnode-hugger from way back
[09:32:11] <_orkel> :-), okey, got it
[09:32:58] <gibson042> if you prick them, do they not nextSibling? ;)
[09:33:05] <DaveMethvin> lol
[09:33:12] <_orkel> :-)
[09:33:18] <DaveMethvin> they are not worthy!
[09:33:58] <_orkel> bye-bye element traversing api :-(
[09:35:05] <DaveMethvin> A few of us will be in Toronto for the conf next week and are working Monday
[09:35:14] <DaveMethvin> including mikesherov
[09:35:28] <DaveMethvin> i'll try to focus on docs issues, there are a lot of them
[09:37:27] <DaveMethvin> i think i cleaned up most of the New tix last night
[09:38:11] <DaveMethvin> and i think a few of the PRs are ready to land, will do that later today
[09:38:23] <DaveMethvin> any other issues you guys want to discuss?
[09:39:27] <gibson042> I think that's all I've got
[09:39:41] <DaveMethvin> alrighty then, let's call it  a day! thanks guys
[09:39:53] <DaveMethvin> hope you're feeling better _orkel