[08:02:32] <jzaefferer> Hey JamesMGreene, thanks for the reminder
[08:03:04] <jzaefferer> ping scott_gonzalez DaveMethvin gnarf Krinkle|detached rworth kborchers gseguin|away
[08:03:29] <rworth> hey
[08:04:08] <kborchers> oh hi
[08:04:16] <scott_gonzalez> hey
[08:04:26] <JamesMGreene> no prb
[08:04:50] <jzaefferer> Hey James, want to start with an update on QUnit add-ons and event emitter?
[08:05:04] <JamesMGreene> What I can, sure :)
[08:05:58] <JamesMGreene> The JUnitLogger is officially split out as "jquery/qunit-reporter-junit" and is now running on TravisCI
[08:06:27] <JamesMGreene> (by Krinkle|detached)
[08:07:07] <gseguin> 'sup?
[08:07:13] <JamesMGreene> Krinkle|detached and I worked through my infamous 10-commit PR for QUnit Composite, refactored a few things, had some good discussion, and finally merged into master
[08:07:26] <JamesMGreene> Took like 5 hours and kept me up till like 3:00am my time :-P
[08:08:03] <JamesMGreene> But Composite is now ready to be ported out to "jquery/qunit-contrib-composite" when I get a chance, likely yet this week
[08:08:31] <jzaefferer> gseguin: bi-weekly testing meeting. If you've got something to discuss related to QUnit, TestSwarm, Jenkins, Travis, Saucelabs.. this is the place!
[08:08:40] <JamesMGreene> It still needs real unit tests (it basically just runs all of the other unit tests right now) but we'll get to those post-split
[08:09:01] <gseguin> jzaefferer: thanks for the invite, I'll listen in
[08:09:16] <JamesMGreene> Finally, regarding the event emitter refactor, Krinkle|detached is spearheading that and I haven't heard anything new in the past day or two from him
[08:09:52] <JamesMGreene> The assertion addons can be split whenever, they're a piece of cake
[08:10:08] <JamesMGreene> Oh yeah, and on that note
[08:10:26] <JamesMGreene> We refactored the assertion addons to extend `QUnit.assert` instead of `QUnit`
[08:10:48] <JamesMGreene> And we chose to NOT maintain backward compatibility there as the addons have extremely low usage :)/:(
[08:12:03] <JamesMGreene> Unrelated to addons, I also updated QUnit core to use Grunt 0.4.0 and its latest plugins, which introduced the TestSwarm build issues
[08:12:05] <jzaefferer> rworth: you said at some point we should write "add-on", instead of addon, which keeps annoying me. Since we also plugin (not plug-in), would you be fine with sticking with addon?
[08:12:42] <JamesMGreene> Or just call them plugins :)
[08:12:45] <jzaefferer> JamesMGreene: what testswarm issue?
[08:12:59] <jzaefferer> plugin also works
[08:13:11] <jzaefferer> I guess QUnit plugin vs jQuery plugin is clear enough?
[08:14:08] <rworth> plugin should be plugin, add-on should be add-on
[08:14:09] <rworth> it's just the way each word is spelled
[08:14:21] <rworth> should be
[08:14:23] <JamesMGreene> Well, not a TestSwarm issue. I meant the QUnit builds passing-but-failing on the TestSwarm build box
[08:14:35] <jzaefferer> JamesMGreene: you mean Jenkins?
[08:14:38] <JamesMGreene> due to the lack of swap memory or whatever
[08:14:50] <gseguin> JamesMGreene: should be fixed now
[08:14:55] <JamesMGreene> Oh yeah, sorry... the URL screws with my head
[08:15:01] <JamesMGreene> gseguin: sweet
[08:15:13] <jzaefferer> gseguin: oh yeah? how is that?
[08:15:17] <gseguin> ryanneufeld added some memory to the machine
[08:15:25] <scott_gonzalez> jzaefferer: Just use "extension" and there won't be any discussion of hyphenation :-)
[08:15:35] <JamesMGreene> For informational purposes:
[08:15:45] <JamesMGreene> 1. My big QUnit Composite PR was: https://github.com/jquery/qunit/pull/408
[08:15:46] <b-ot> JamesMGreene: Pull request #408 by JamesMGreene (1mon 1w ago): QUnit Composite - First round of major cleanup
[08:15:48] <jzaefferer> gseguin: afaik that didn't make any difference
[08:16:08] <JamesMGreene> The event emitter task Krinkle|detached is working on is: https://github.com/jquery/qunit/issues/422
[08:16:10] <b-ot> JamesMGreene: Issue #422 by JamesMGreene (1w 18h ago): Implement QUnit callbacks event listener style
[08:16:12] <gseguin> jzaefferer: Some of our builds started passing after he made the change
[08:16:55] <jzaefferer> well, this still crashes: http://swarm.jquery.org:8080/job/QUnit/271/console
[08:17:16] <jzaefferer> though here its actually a different behaviour then for UI, where there's an Cannot Allocate Memory exception
[08:17:37] <JamesMGreene> QUnit assertion addon updates was: https://github.com/jquery/qunit/pull/418
[08:17:37] <b-ot> JamesMGreene: Pull request #418 by JamesMGreene (1w 4d ago): Update pattern for QUnit assertion addons
[08:18:01] <JamesMGreene> Grunt update was: https://github.com/jquery/qunit/pull/423
[08:18:02] <b-ot> JamesMGreene: Pull request #423 by JamesMGreene (6d 16h ago): Issue #377 - Build: Upgraded to Grunt 0.4.0
[08:19:47] <jzaefferer> Any opinions on add-on vs plugin vs extension?
[08:20:01] <JamesMGreene> extension is long
[08:20:06] <JamesMGreene> I'd go with plugin, personally
[08:20:18] <JamesMGreene> aligns with jQuery anyway
[08:20:38] <jzaefferer> yeah
[08:21:21] <jzaefferer> gseguin: what's the plan for turning off tasks on Jenkins or integrating TestSwarm with Travis?
[08:22:02] <gseguin> I've turned off the master Phantom test and I believe the 1.3-stable one
[08:22:50] <gseguin> the other ones are still needed until we release the 1.1.2 and 1.2.1
[08:23:39] <gseguin> For testswarm, I have no idea yet how that would work with Travis
[08:23:48] <jzaefferer> do you pay any attention to the jenkins-mobile-testswarm job?
[08:23:54] <jzaefferer> otherwise we could disable that for now as well
[08:24:14] <gseguin> Bender might be, I'll ask him
[08:24:37] <jzaefferer> okay, thanks
[08:24:55] <gseguin> My guess is that we're going to keep testswarm in Jenkins
[08:25:10] <JamesMGreene> Any thoughts on which QUnit plugins we should publish to NPM?
[08:25:49] <JamesMGreene> Some of them don't really make sense, e.g. canvas
[08:25:56] <JamesMGreene> But other do, e.g. step
[08:26:05] <jzaefferer> JamesMGreene: why not? There's canvas-in-nodejs modules
[08:26:21] <JamesMGreene> Oh, I suppose
[08:26:36] <jzaefferer> also once its in npm, you can install via npm and include via <script src=../node_modules/...
[08:26:48] <JamesMGreene> Oh, also true
[08:27:23] <JamesMGreene> What's the stance on my qunit-assert-html addon becoming a jquery repo? I assume that I would need to get it working consistently in IE7-8 first. Correct?
[08:27:48] <jzaefferer> I think as a separate plugin (!) its fine to have different support
[08:28:02] <jzaefferer> though it would be a shame if we can't just use for jQuery UI
[08:28:04] <JamesMGreene> Even if it is housed by the jquery org?
[08:29:07] <JamesMGreene> I mean when we discussing plugin browser support previously the plan was that official plugins should match QUnit's support goal
[08:29:14] <JamesMGreene> discussed*
[08:29:18] <JamesMGreene> Man I can't type today
[08:30:18] <JamesMGreene> Related: https://github.com/jquery/qunit/issues/412
[08:30:18] <b-ot> JamesMGreene: Issue #412 by Krinkle (1mon 1w ago): Document browser support
[08:30:50] <JamesMGreene> Oh yeah, so Krinkle|detached said match jQuery 1.x's support model, which is IE6+
[08:31:13] <JamesMGreene> I kinda doubt I can get my qunit-assert-html plugin to work on IE6... haven't tried it yet
[08:31:15] <jzaefferer> Well
[08:31:20] <JamesMGreene> IE7 is in rough shape as it is
[08:31:27] <jzaefferer> I guess you don't want to deal with that in your html plugin?
[08:31:28] <JamesMGreene> So let's just hold off for now
[08:31:43] <jzaefferer> jQuery Core should drop IE6...
[08:31:56] <jzaefferer> afaik no one ever complained about UI not supporting IE6 anymore
[08:32:10] <jzaefferer> and we ripped out a bunch of CSS hacks, so there's certainly visual artifacts
[08:34:04] <JamesMGreene> I'd certainly be OK with that ;)
[08:34:37] <jzaefferer> we'll see
[08:35:20] <jzaefferer> JamesMGreene gseguin: do you have anything else?
[08:35:35] <JamesMGreene> I think that's everything of note for me
[08:36:01] <JamesMGreene> Oh
[08:36:03] <JamesMGreene> 1 more
[08:36:18] <JamesMGreene> https://github.com/jquery/qunit/issues/420
[08:36:18] <b-ot> JamesMGreene: Issue #420 by jzaefferer (1w 4d ago): Improve or drop phantomjs add-on
[08:37:22] <JamesMGreene> Any new thoughts on that one?
[08:38:05] <JamesMGreene> ben_alman gave a non-committal "sure, we'd love it if you did more of the work for us" response :)
[08:38:08] <jzaefferer> Not from me. Need to look at grunt-contrib-qunit and grunt-lib-phantomjs to figure out what they do
[08:38:19] <jzaefferer> well, I'm a grunt-contrib commiter already anyway...
[08:38:41] <JamesMGreene> hehe yeah
[08:38:54] <JamesMGreene> Now all that said, we get a lot of PRs for that plugin
[08:39:01] <JamesMGreene> So it is definitely getting use
[08:39:12] <JamesMGreene> (and needs improvement, as noted)
[08:39:17] <jzaefferer> true
[08:40:30] <jzaefferer> commented: https://github.com/jquery/qunit/issues/420#issuecomment-14909617
[08:40:32] <b-ot> jzaefferer: Issue #420 by jzaefferer (1w 4d ago): Improve or drop phantomjs add-on
[08:40:44] <JamesMGreene> So I'm inclined to say move it to a standalone repo within the org that can be consumed by grunt-contrib-qunit? Hard to say without digging into it more
[08:40:55] <jzaefferer> probably, yeah
[08:41:54] <JamesMGreene> With regard to the PhantomJS-bundled "run-qunit.js" example, we might actually have better luck asking for it to be dropped altogether
[08:42:08] <JamesMGreene> Ariya seems a bit adamant about keeping the examples very simple
[08:42:19] <JamesMGreene> which I can respecrt
[08:42:22] <JamesMGreene> respect*
[08:43:58] <JamesMGreene> OK, that's all I've got for now. We need to rekindle some discussion for other issues but they can wait
[08:44:38] <jzaefferer> alright, thanks!
[08:46:02] <JamesMGreene> Hmm, oh shoot
[08:46:19] <JamesMGreene> He probably won't agree to remove the example either, apparently it's referenced in a book
[08:46:35] <JamesMGreene> https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/pull/412
[08:46:35] <b-ot> JamesMGreene: Pull request #412 by rajdudi (1w 22m ago): Update waitfor.js
[08:47:08] <JamesMGreene> "QUnit test runner is referred in at least one book. The best compromise is not to remove it, but leave it with a comment redirecting it to the official one."
[08:47:24] <JamesMGreene> So I think he means we can replace the body of the file to just point to the official one
[08:47:32] <JamesMGreene> That would be OK
[08:48:31] <JamesMGreene> Hey, Krinkle
[08:50:19] <JamesMGreene> jzaefferer Thoughts on that?
[08:51:07] <Krinkle> JamesMGreene: jzaefferer: Indeed, Jenkins build, not testswarm build.
[08:51:43] <JamesMGreene> Yeah, sorry, the "http://swarm.jquery.org:8080/" URL throws me off
[08:52:05] <Krinkle> JamesMGreene: jzaefferer: The problem is mostly capacity in phantomjs, something became "too much". Disabling the extra test suites (bringing it back to core index/async) would make it pass again
[08:52:34] <Krinkle> though considering there is a bug with phantom memory crash exiting with code 0 (success) it isn't really an issue in the current state.
[08:52:47] <JamesMGreene> That would theoretically become non-issue once we split all the addons out of the repo
[08:52:53] <Krinkle> I did pretty extensive research on that failure and filed a bug
[08:53:10] <JamesMGreene> I thought it was exiting with code `null` or whatever
[08:53:11] <JamesMGreene> ?
[08:53:15] <Krinkle> jzaefferer: https://github.com/gruntjs/grunt-lib-phantomjs/issues/13
[08:53:15] <b-ot> Krinkle: Issue #13 by Krinkle (5d 8h ago): Task not marked as failure if phantomjs fails unexpectedly
[08:53:26] <Krinkle> That's part of it, yes.
[08:53:28] <Krinkle> JamesMGreene: https://github.com/gruntjs/grunt-lib-phantomjs/issues/13
[08:53:29] <b-ot> Krinkle: Issue #13 by Krinkle (5d 8h ago): Task not marked as failure if phantomjs fails unexpectedly
[08:54:00] <Krinkle> btw, is this meeting scheduled in american time? I noticed it's an hour earlier.
[08:54:20] <Krinkle> Hence me being late (I usually have an hour before the meeting)
[08:54:37] <JamesMGreene> Yeah, Eastern Standard Time
[08:54:49] <JamesMGreene> " || All times ET"
[08:55:03] <Krinkle> google calendar maps it to my own timezone, so I don't care about it.
[08:55:17] <JamesMGreene> Well, we have stupid Daylight Savings Time
[08:55:23] <Krinkle> there's a shared read-only calendar for jquery meetings
[08:55:26] <jzaefferer> Krinkle: yeah, it is. If you subscribe to the official meeting calendar, you'll have them in the correct time
[08:55:29] <JamesMGreene> Just "sprung ahead" 1 hour this week
[08:55:46] <jzaefferer> The three weeks of DST shift is really annoying
[08:55:47] <Krinkle> jzaefferer: I know, but I don't always look at it :)
[08:55:55] <jzaefferer> okay
[08:55:58] <gseguin> jzaefferer: where is that calendar feed?
[08:56:23] <rworth> jquery.org/meeting
[08:56:30] <gseguin> thanks rworth
[08:56:32] <jzaefferer> Krinkle: Well, since you're here now, do you have something to add? Nothing much about TestSwarm yet. And maybe you can give gseguin your thoughts on TestSwarm and Travis
[08:57:03] <Krinkle> Can you be more elaborate? I could talk for hours.
[08:57:10] <Krinkle> s/elaborate/precise
[08:58:11] <jzaefferer> What's preventing us from using Travis with TestSwarm?
[08:59:18] <Krinkle> Okay
[09:00:04] <Krinkle> The main problem here is that Travis has no means to expose credentials in a way that doesn't make builds triggered by pull requests, fail.
[09:00:26] <Krinkle> aside from that, if we are using TestSwarm, it will still communicate with our servers
[09:00:41] <Krinkle> which means there is no advantage to using Travis instead of Jenkins to trigger the builds
[09:00:52] <Krinkle> It doesn't bring us anything we don't already have afaik.
[09:01:17] <Krinkle> The alternative to using TestSwarm/BrowserStack is using saucelabs, where the intermediary (testswarm) becomes obsolete
[09:01:24] <Krinkle> however this comes with several caveats
[09:01:29] <jzaefferer> gseguin: what was the motivation to move to Travis in the first place?
[09:01:53] <gseguin> I like the integration with github
[09:02:15] <gseguin> being able to run the unit tests on PR I think is a great time saver
[09:02:54] <Krinkle> firstly, saucelabs uses selenium only, which means the set of browsers supported is smaller (browserstack has a wider range of browsers). Secondly, there isn;t (yet?) good software to extract the results from saucelabs in a machine readable way we wouldn't have something like http://swarm.jquery.org/result/12793
[09:03:16] <Krinkle> gseguin: Using travis does not equal getting tests on pull requests, the to are imho not related in any way.
[09:03:23] <Krinkle> two*
[09:03:53] <Krinkle> Travis runs on pull requests by default, but in that case secure variables are not decrypted and no authenticated services can be used (browserstack, saucelabs, testswarm, whatever)
[09:04:11] <Krinkle> For obvious and good reasons, as anyone would be able to submit a pull requests exposing those credentials.
[09:04:36] <Krinkle> We can enable pull request testing in Jenkins too, it's fairly trivial (certainly been invented before, mergeatron comes to mind but there are others)
[09:04:51] <jzaefferer> I wonder what happened to mergatron
[09:04:56] <Krinkle> It doesn't require changing our whole infrastructure, pull requesting isn't a travis invention.
[09:05:00] <jzaefferer> ping mikesherov
[09:05:20] <gseguin> Yeah I was looking into mergeatron, looks great
[09:05:29] <jzaefferer> Its certainly nice to run everything that grunt does locally for every PR
[09:05:36] <jzaefferer> We don't need TestSwarm tests for each PR
[09:05:42] <Krinkle> jzaefferer: Well, even if we pick that up, the main issue stands. We need to either ensure everything runs in a sandbox (like travis) so people don't submit rm -rf / :)
[09:05:55] <gseguin> however exactly, I don't care about testswarm on Travis
[09:06:06] <gseguin> We can run more extended tests in Jenkins
[09:06:12] <Krinkle> issues with PRs is two fold: Arbitrary code and authentication. The former is not an issue on travis. The latter is an issue on both.
[09:06:33] <Krinkle> gseguin: Extended tests, when? After the merge?
[09:07:17] <gseguin> yes
[09:07:39] <Krinkle> Right now jquery core does not yet pass in phantomjs either
[09:07:54] <jzaefferer> What if we use Travis for all the jQuery projects to run `grunt` for our own commits and PRs. And have Jenkins run TestSwarm for only our own commits?
[09:08:01] <Krinkle> so if you take out testswarm, there aren't any tests. It'd only do a basic lint check on travis, that's not very useful.
[09:08:14] <jzaefferer> basic lint is still useful for PRs
[09:08:20] <Krinkle> jzaefferer: Sure
[09:08:22] <jzaefferer> less PR yelling
[09:08:33] <Krinkle> Whether it runs phantomjs is configurable by the project's gruntfile.
[09:08:57] <Krinkle> There is nothing blocking us from doing tha
[09:08:59] <Krinkle> that*
[09:09:00] <Krinkle> go ahead
[09:09:42] <Krinkle> I'd recommend we ensure "grunt" is in package.json scripts.test so we only need .travis.yml to init/update submodules, npm install -g grunt-cli
[09:09:57] <Krinkle> npm install && npm test is done on travis by default
[09:10:02] <jzaefferer> Krinkle: any idea how to resolve this sucker? https://github.com/jquery/infrastructure/issues/162
[09:10:14] <Krinkle> No idea
[09:11:49] <jzaefferer> So I'll add QUnit to Travis, we'll see how that works out
[09:12:17] <jzaefferer> I'm sure	scott_gonzalez has an opinion on Travis, having some successful PR tests with QUnit should help
[09:13:15] <jzaefferer> Krinkle: what's the status on the projects refactoring?
[09:13:45] <JamesMGreene> scott_gonzalez ^
[09:14:03] <Krinkle> jzaefferer: I worked on it last week, I'm shelving it for this week as there are other priorities from what I see in jquery work, I'll pick it up again next week. That I expect to be the last of it before it lands in master.
[09:14:31] <jzaefferer> okay
[09:14:40] <JamesMGreene> Which refactoring are we talking about? The event emitter changes or something else?
[09:14:42] <jzaefferer> what's those other priorities?
[09:14:52] <Krinkle> JamesMGreene: TestSwarm
[09:15:03] <JamesMGreene> oic, sorry
[09:15:27] <Krinkle> jzaefferer: jq03 issues and various PRs and issue tracker updates on non-testswarm jquery repos
[09:15:31] <Krinkle> incl. qunit
[09:15:43] <Krinkle> also communicating with browserstack
[09:16:35] <jzaefferer> alright, sounds good
[09:16:43] <Krinkle> jzaefferer: btw, I'll ask someone else if appropiate, but I was wondering on the upcoming portland event. Do I need to register? Where/how should we submit talks (I know the normal channel, but not sure if I should or you etc.), I assume I'll be contacted later on about travel/accomodation?
[09:17:56] <jzaefferer> Krinkle: you should submit a talk proposal. Beyond that I'm indeed the wrong person to ask. Ping rworth for a start, he knows these things
[09:18:09] <JamesMGreene> Yeah, talk to rworth
[09:18:36] <JamesMGreene> And yes, you will need to register but they'll give you a promo code to make it $0
[09:24:16] <JamesMGreene> brb
[09:29:17] <JamesMGreene> Meeting died? :)  jzaefferer Krinkle
[09:33:17] <JamesMGreene> Hellooooooooooo?
[09:35:28] <Krinkle> Times up
[09:36:49] <JamesMGreene> "The call for papers will close at 11:59pm EST on March 3rd, 2013. Submissions will not be accepted beyond that point."
[09:36:52] <JamesMGreene> Accurate?
[09:37:06] <JamesMGreene> rworth DaveMethvin|away ^
[09:37:46] <rworth> JamesMGreene I'm sure ajpiano will be happy to receive applications from team members at this point, but not the general public
[09:37:56] <JamesMGreene> gotcha, thanks
[09:38:00] <ajpiano> the form still works.
[09:38:29] <JamesMGreene> Thanks, ajpiano. I'll think on it today
[09:41:58] <jzaefferer> JamesMGreene: sorry, had to be afk for a few minutes.
[09:42:03] <jzaefferer> Thanks all
[09:42:09] <jzaefferer> I'll send the update later
[10:00:30] <ajpiano> content meeting timeeeee
[10:01:09] <ajpiano> scott_gonzalez: rworth kswedberg agcolom gnarf Rwhitbeck
[10:01:32] <rworth> hey
[10:02:13] <ajpiano> scott is out running errands, just texted me
[10:02:30] <ajpiano> so, just spent a bunch of time trying to get out from under the mountain of PRs on learn
[10:02:42] <ajpiano> got it down to a hill, gonna try to close the rest of the low hanging fruit tickets and do a release
[10:03:15] <rworth> awesome
[10:03:37] <ajpiano> wanted to find out what's going on with jquery.org and also jquerymobile.com
[10:03:49] <rworth> I was saying in #content a bit ago, had a meet this morning with dmethvin
[10:04:02] <rworth> we did a walk-through of .org
[10:04:21] <rworth> started fixing some stuff. I'm working through about 6 items now. He'll update the history page tonight
[10:04:32] <rworth> then we'll take another look in the morning, hopefully be ready to go
[10:04:56] <ajpiano> great
[10:05:03] <rworth> biggest blocker at this point is stripe coupons. Waiting for an email back from their support, but I have a good idea how it's going to go
[10:05:27] <ajpiano> so you think we will actually be able to launch.... next week?
[10:05:32] <rworth> tomorrow
[10:05:44] <rworth> we'll start the individual membership program on Mar 15
[10:05:47] <ajpiano> alright, well keep me in the loop in that case so we can tweet
[10:05:58] <ajpiano> are you going to write a blog
[10:06:07] <agcolom> hello!
[10:06:15] <rworth> and all individuals with coupons, whether caus they were at the hackathon or caus their employer is a member, the'll have till April 1 to sign up with a coupon
[10:06:41] <rworth> then we'll always do those quarterly (sort of like open enrollment)
[10:07:00] <ajpiano> so there'd be another period for anyone who misses the next 2 weeks?
[10:07:12] <rworth> of course people can sign up any time, but coupons will be open the last two weeks of each quarter, so they're not staggered so constantly
[10:07:34] <rworth> actually it's not a big deal for hackathon folks
[10:07:37] <rworth> those can stay open
[10:07:44] <ajpiano> ok
[10:08:04] <rworth> and it might not matter for corporate member individuals, depends on what I hear back from stripe via email. I may be pushing the limits of the design of their coupon system
[10:08:10] <rworth> but really really happy with their system
[10:09:25] <ajpiano> good news
[10:09:39] <ajpiano> agcolom: any info by any chance on how things are looking for jquerymobile.com
[10:10:19] <agcolom> no, I don't. I saw that Ralph and Jason did some work on this last week.
[10:10:42] <agcolom> I've been unable to work on this as too busy with work. Should eb better after saturday
[10:10:51] <ajpiano> no prob
[10:11:02] <agcolom> I can find out in one hour at our meeting
[10:11:03] <ajpiano> i'll try to find out from todd/ralph when they are actually wanting to launch
[10:11:28] <agcolom> good idea
[10:12:11] <ajpiano> welp
[10:12:26] <ajpiano> that's all i've got for the moment
[10:12:39] <rworth> see y'all
[10:12:47] <ajpiano> will catch up with scott_gonzalez when he gets back
[11:04:07] <toddmparker> Hi all
[11:04:11] <uGoMobi> hi
[11:04:15] <JasonDScott___> Hi
[11:04:18] <gseguin> Hi
[11:04:20] <toddmparker> The jQuery Mobile meeting is starting up
[11:04:20] <arschmitz> Hi
[11:05:00] <toddmparker> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uJuDYF-FcBk6EhzWXjVrDlRIVWT_npHwsCxQIQZa9ho/edit#
[11:06:04] <toddmparker> We're starting initial 1.4 planning individually but it my make sense to tackle this as sub-teams
[11:06:17] <toddmparker> do people think that's a good idea?
[11:07:02] <uGoMobi> yes
[11:07:25] <toddmparker> i don't want to break things up too much
[11:07:29] <arschmitz> i think that makes sense best not make big decisions in a vaccume
[11:07:41] <toddmparker> but was thinking that even if we had two groups
[11:08:16] <toddmparker> one focused on the plugin cleanup and another on the markup & style, that might be good
[11:09:35] <toddmparker> the plugin team would first work out things like code standards for the library then start combing through things
[11:10:18] <toddmparker> in parallel, we can re-factor the markup and style stuff to simplify. these will be intertwined but even if we had a goal of having a punch list of things for next week, might be a good start
[11:10:59] * johnbender is here
[11:11:02] <toddmparker> we can talk more after this
[11:11:08] <toddmparker> other items - is RWhitbeck here?
[11:11:32] <toddmparker> guess not…I'll connect with him on the website stuff
[11:11:46] <toddmparker> last item from me is maintenance releases
[11:11:50] <johnbender> yar
[11:12:11] <johnbender> lets just do them
[11:12:14] <johnbender> and if they are broken
[11:12:17] <gseguin> let's get those out and close these branches
[11:12:18] <johnbender> do more releases
[11:12:18] <toddmparker> thoughts on the order we should tackle these? oldest first? 1.3.1 first, then older?
[11:12:24] <toddmparker> +1
[11:12:30] <arschmitz> +1
[11:12:30] <johnbender> toddmparker: lets just shit them out at one time
[11:12:36] <uGoMobi> older first
[11:12:37] <johnbender> quick tweet maybe a blogpost
[11:12:39] <toddmparker> want to get in the habit of more frequent maintenance releases
[11:12:47] <johnbender> +100
[11:12:47] <toddmparker> yeah
[11:13:12] <toddmparker> so i have blog posts and change logs for 1.1.2 and 1.2.1 done
[11:13:25] <toddmparker> johnbender: want to do a test deploy?
[11:13:52] <toddmparker> i'll try to clean the posts up tonight and see if we added anything since my last pass
[11:13:55] <johnbender> toddmparker: I was thiking we could have someone else do one
[11:14:00] <johnbender> provided they have the keys in palce
[11:14:08] <johnbender> I'll help out
[11:14:09] * gseguin looks the other way
[11:14:14] <toddmparker> good idea…who wants to give it a crack?
[11:14:17] <johnbender> just want to make sure that I'm not the choke point on deployss
[11:14:22] <johnbender> gseguin: !
[11:14:23] <toddmparker> +1
[11:14:25] <johnbender> lolol
[11:14:41] <gseguin> ok, let's do that in the afternoon
[11:14:43] <uGoMobi> I can take care of TR for those releases this weekend
[11:14:54] <toddmparker> awesome
[11:15:08] <toddmparker> we can shoot for monday for 1.1.2 and 1.2.1
[11:15:19] <toddmparker> that'll give us the weekend to get things in order
[11:15:36] <toddmparker> uGoMobi: can you do TR too or should we ask xavier?
[11:15:40] <gseguin> wait so we still do a test deploy this afternoon, right?
[11:15:49] <uGoMobi> I can do the TR
[11:16:03] <toddmparker> gseguin: yeah, so i can test all the links, zip files, re-check on devices
[11:16:16] <gseguin> ok
[11:16:19] <toddmparker> and we need those files for TR I believe
[11:16:43] <gseguin> oh toddmparker you've got a @ on, nice!
[11:17:00] <toddmparker> think we need to update the docs in both branches…those need to point to the new CDN links and such
[11:17:00] <johnbender> MODparker LOLOLOL
[11:17:08] <johnbender> I kill myself
[11:17:13] * johnbender slaps his knee
[11:17:15] <toddmparker> ...
[11:17:44] <toddmparker> I have no idea what nerdtastic stuff you knee slappers are talking about
[11:17:52] <gseguin> I laughed too, does it mean I'm a nerd?
[11:18:01] <toddmparker> yes, yes it does.
[11:18:54] <gseguin> toddmparker: so who's taking care of updating the docs?
[11:19:05] <toddmparker> gseguin: I can, right after this
[11:19:10] <johnbender> toddmparker: @ == moderator == MOD
[11:19:12] <toddmparker> unless agcolom is around to help out
[11:19:23] <johnbender> Todd rhymes with MOD
[11:19:26] <johnbender> QED
[11:19:28] <toddmparker> pooh. nice. so i can kick you out and such?
[11:20:02] <gseguin> with great power...
[11:20:47] <toddmparker> heh
[11:20:51] <toddmparker> that's it for me
[11:20:58] <agcolom> Hi....
[11:21:07] <toddmparker> hi agcolom
[11:21:13] <toddmparker> want to go?
[11:21:14] <uGoMobi> hi Anne
[11:21:17] <agcolom> ok
[11:21:43] <agcolom>     Liaised with Brad Lassey to get Firefox OS phones sent to Todd & Mat
[11:22:02] <toddmparker> woo hoo
[11:22:04] <agcolom> that's it really for this week
[11:22:08] <gseguin> BTW while we're on the nerd track: Happy Pi day!
[11:22:10] <uGoMobi> cool
[11:22:42] <agcolom> been ultra busy... should be better from next week
[11:22:59] <toddmparker> think that's true of all us. been quiet here, that's ok
[11:23:01] <agcolom> you said unless agcolom is around to help out
[11:23:10] <toddmparker> heh
[11:23:14] <agcolom> how can I help (and with what ?)
[11:23:23] <toddmparker> i need to update the docs for 1.1.2 and 1.2.1
[11:23:30] <toddmparker> maybe we can divide and conquer
[11:23:33] <agcolom> oh ok...
[11:23:43] <agcolom> yes, can only do that from monday
[11:23:53] <toddmparker> it's ok, i'll do it today
[11:24:01] <agcolom> (still havent finished my lecture for tomorrow )
[11:24:16] <agcolom> ok, cool, thanks :-)
[11:24:17] <toddmparker> priorities
[11:24:55] <agcolom> unfortunately web stuff changes and i chose to rewrite all my lectures on JavaScript...
[11:25:07] <agcolom> taking ages! but really needed doing!
[11:25:15] <toddmparker> ah. no more DHTML?
[11:25:32] <agcolom> (language = "javaScript 1.2") !!!!!
[11:25:57] <agcolom> and when we had to have the comments to hide the code from old browsers!
[11:26:09] <agcolom> good old days!
[11:26:27] <toddmparker> not really :p
[11:26:43] <agcolom> yeah ;)
[11:26:54] <toddmparker> cool
[11:27:02] <toddmparker> that it for now?
[11:27:03] <uGoMobi> BTW - we probably have to update the copyright and year in 1.1/1.2 stable docs
[11:27:05] <agcolom> so from next week, I'll sort out some of the api issues
[11:27:07] <uGoMobi> https://github.com/jquery/jquery-mobile/wiki/Release-Instructions-Checklist
[11:27:41] <gseguin> agcolom: you might want to add to that: http://branch.com/b/dhtmlconf-ideas
[11:27:48] <toddmparker> uGoMobi: thank you sir
[11:28:00] <gseguin> thanks uGoMobi
[11:28:05] <toddmparker> agcolom: yeah, saw a few API thing come in
[11:29:02] <uGoMobi> I noticed that people don't really know where to submit documentation issues
[11:29:07] <toddmparker> so what's up gseguin. seems you've been busy
[11:29:08] <agcolom> gseguin: that's great! Thanks :)
[11:29:34] <gseguin> yeah landed grunt-0.4 last week
[11:29:47] <gseguin> and then been tweaking Travis-CI ever since
[11:29:53] <johnbender> w00t
[11:29:58] <toddmparker> nice work
[11:30:03] <gseguin> We're now in a rather good place
[11:30:03] <uGoMobi> travis is awesome gseguin
[11:30:09] <toddmparker> .4 is a pretty big change
[11:30:11] <johnbender> *rather*
[11:30:12] <toddmparker> excellent
[11:30:23] <gseguin> thanks, I especially like the integration with Github
[11:30:27] <toddmparker> so are the deploy scripts going to be grunt going forward?
[11:30:30] <uGoMobi> yeah
[11:30:42] <gseguin> it triggers a test cycle on each PR
[11:30:42] <toddmparker> but just for 1.3.x +
[11:30:49] <arschmitz> git hub integration is awesome
[11:31:08] <toddmparker> yeah. i pressed like 30 green buttons yesterday. no need to test anymore
[11:31:14] <gseguin> yes toddmparker, though these scripts haven't been tested thoroughly
[11:31:19] <arschmitz> FIX YOUR BUST PR!
[11:31:27] <gseguin> heh :)
[11:31:40] * johnbender wants to go next
[11:31:41] <gseguin> Problem is our tests take too effing long
[11:31:44] <toddmparker> gseguin: will you be able to use the grunt deploy for 1.1.2 and 1.2.1?
[11:31:52] <johnbender> toddmparker: nope
[11:31:53] <gseguin> toddmparker: no
[11:32:27] <toddmparker> k, figured
[11:32:51] <gseguin> I started splitting integration and unit tests
[11:32:54] <arschmitz> need to add a way to send automated hate mail to people that submit broken PR's
[11:33:04] <johnbender> arschmitz: NO!
[11:33:04] <gseguin> but it's not easy on suites like navigation
[11:33:08] <johnbender> I know you're joking
[11:33:11] <johnbender> but NO!
[11:33:12] <arschmitz> oh course
[11:33:14] <johnbender> contribs are king
[11:33:27] <toddmparker> speaking of which, how's our PR queue?
[11:33:31] <johnbender> we're nice and that's how we end up with people like you working on the project :)
[11:33:40] <toddmparker> yeeps, 29
[11:33:44] <johnbender> well at least in part
[11:33:52] <toddmparker> anyone have time to chip away at those?
[11:34:13] <toddmparker> maybe _|Nix|_ will have time
[11:34:26] <arschmitz> in honesty though do they recieve a notification of any kind that it didnt pass so they know?
[11:34:41] <toddmparker> 5,457 closed issues. don't know whether to laugh or cry.
[11:34:49] <gseguin> I'm not sure
[11:35:05] <gseguin> that's a good question
[11:35:14] <toddmparker> well, they'll see the travis status, won't they
[11:35:16] <gseguin> easy to test
[11:35:37] <gseguin> toddmparker: yes but that means they need to actively monitor their PR
[11:35:42] <arschmitz> a lot of people might not go back to check if they dont get a notification
[11:37:02] <toddmparker> sure
[11:37:03] <gseguin> that's it for me, I'm continuing to split tests
[11:37:21] <toddmparker> well, we can just try and respond faster when PRs come in.
[11:37:33] <gseguin> and then will create a Jenkins job to execute those integration testing ones
[11:37:37] <toddmparker> and comment if needed if there's an issue. that's probably better anyway
[11:37:58] <gseguin> oh the other thing is now that the build status is more exposed
[11:38:03] <toddmparker> gseguin: I updated 1.1-stable to say "1.1.2" so that's ready
[11:38:09] <gseguin> we NEED to fix these unstable tests
[11:38:19] <gseguin> toddmparker: ok
[11:38:32] <toddmparker> johnbender: what's your thinking on those flaky tests?
[11:38:51] <johnbender> depends on which ones
[11:39:14] <johnbender> there are some tests we can get rid of
[11:39:27] <gseguin> then let's do it
[11:39:46] <gseguin> because right we get a lot of false negative
[11:40:47] <johnbender> gseguin: yah we can take a look
[11:40:55] <johnbender> gseguin: worst case I s hould be able to look at it on monday
[11:41:08] <gseguin> johnbender: sounds good
[11:41:35] <toddmparker> perfect, thanks johnbender
[11:41:45] <toddmparker> that it gseguin?
[11:42:04] <gseguin> yup, think so
[11:42:10] <toddmparker> k
[11:42:13] <toddmparker> whuddup johnbender
[11:42:21] <johnbender> ahh cool
[11:42:22] <johnbender> so
[11:42:25] <johnbender> the core thing
[11:42:28] <johnbender> not much to be done :(
[11:42:41] <johnbender> https://gist.github.com/johnbender/3a4898465e4c0a9092eb
[11:42:58] <johnbender> did a little hacking and found out that effects is pretty much it
[11:43:01] <johnbender> :(
[11:43:08] <johnbender> helped out a bit with travis and some broken tests
[11:43:16] <johnbender> oh and the widget registry
[11:43:34] <johnbender> for which I submitted a possible solution that was discarded shamefully in favor of _|Nix|_'s
[11:43:38] <johnbender> lolol
[11:43:40] <johnbender> and that's it
[11:43:53] <johnbender> also managed to get a schollarship for my first year at UCLA
[11:44:00] <toddmparker> so we use most of core then?
[11:44:02] <johnbender> and my second year is funded too (RA or TA)
[11:44:03] <johnbender> :)
[11:44:04] <toddmparker> congrats!!
[11:44:07] <johnbender> toddmparker: yep :)
[11:44:09] <uGoMobi> congrats!
[11:44:13] <gseguin> congrats!
[11:44:13] <johnbender> toddmparker: yep - we use most of core
[11:44:15] <johnbender> toddmparker: wel
[11:44:16] <arschmitz> Awesome!
[11:44:23] <johnbender> toddmparker: most of the modules as they  are defined by core
[11:44:56] <toddmparker> right, we touch most modules. there is some debate on how the slice up modules tho
[11:45:04] <gseguin> johnbender: but if they were to have finer granularity we could use less
[11:45:19] <toddmparker> for example, ajax is all or nothing but i think there should be a simple ajax and mega ajax
[11:45:30] <toddmparker> what gseguin said
[11:45:56] <toddmparker> but we don't use things like animate so that module can go
[11:46:08] <johnbender> gseguin: possibly
[11:46:15] <johnbender> gseguin: we definitely use a subset of methods
[11:46:20] <toddmparker> did you share this with DaveMethvin and scott_gonzalez - good stuff
[11:46:26] <johnbender> but the method deps aren't defined with lots of granularity
[11:46:29] <johnbender> toddmparker: I did
[11:46:31] <johnbender> no response
[11:46:33] <johnbender> :P
[11:46:36] <toddmparker> ah, really
[11:46:37] <toddmparker> ok
[11:46:56] <johnbender> DaveMethvin|away: ignores me on principle after I started yelling about splitting core methods in two lolol
[11:47:12] <toddmparker> so shipping with a lighter core with the modules in their current state isn't going to get us anywhere
[11:47:17] <johnbender> yar
[11:47:26] <johnbender> well it would save 2 or 3 k to get rid of effects
[11:47:28] <johnbender> but
[11:47:29] <johnbender> meh
[11:47:35] <toddmparker> right.
[11:47:40] <toddmparker> 2-3k gzipped?
[11:48:07] <toddmparker> even so, probably not worth the confusion
[11:48:19] <johnbender> toddmparker: yah
[11:48:34] <toddmparker> i think the might core would need to be closer to 15k to make the potential confusion worth it
[11:48:45] <toddmparker> bummer tho
[11:49:14] <toddmparker> worth keeping an eye on that as we re-factor. Could we be more careful about what parts of the API we use to drop modules
[11:49:39] <toddmparker> and are there places where we should advocate tweaking modules (like ajax) to be a better fit
[11:50:03] <toddmparker> dave said that was still on the table
[11:50:22] <arschmitz> i know i heard talk of re working ajax but there was resistance from julian
[11:50:45] <toddmparker> right.
[11:50:55] <toddmparker> so you also mentioned the widget registry
[11:51:13] <johnbender> toddmparker: _|Nix|_ can comment more on that
[11:51:22] <toddmparker> that the creation of the package.json files for the plugin site?
[11:51:26] <johnbender> toddmparker: but in general
[11:51:29] <johnbender> oh no
[11:51:30] <gseguin> I don't think he's here
[11:51:43] <johnbender> toddmparker: the problem is that we have enhancement order dependencies
[11:51:52] <toddmparker> (he's not here)
[11:51:57] <toddmparker> ah, right
[11:52:02] <johnbender> which are not the same as load order dependencies
[11:52:12] <johnbender> loading just make sure they are in the page in order
[11:52:15] <johnbender> but that's not always enough
[11:52:19] <toddmparker> so this lets us control the sequence
[11:52:23] <johnbender> correct
[11:52:30] <johnbender> the order in which we run the enhancement
[11:52:36] <toddmparker> nice
[11:52:40] <johnbender> toddmparker: not public
[11:52:45] <johnbender> but we landed on something like
[11:52:58] <toddmparker> i hope we can reduce the need for that in general, but this is still super important
[11:53:13] <johnbender> $.mobile.widget._register( "mobile.foo", { dependencies: ["mobile.bar", "mobile.baz"]} )
[11:53:37] <arschmitz> johnbender: not sure if you saw stuff from _|Nix|_ but he was saying it wont work on widget
[11:53:45] <arschmitz> because of button markup
[11:53:52] <uGoMobi> _|Nix|_ mentioned that the controlgroup - buttonMarkup dependency was causing an issue
[11:53:56] <johnbender> arschmitz: yah I said we should just leave that oen out
[11:53:57] <uGoMobi> arschmitz: yeah
[11:54:10] <johnbender> and move it to a widget when we could
[11:54:21] <johnbender> which should be fairly painless
[11:54:27] <arschmitz> i think with 1.4 we could fix non widget issues here
[11:54:28] <johnbender> even if the whole thing is just a _create method
[11:54:45] <uGoMobi> might be different story after we refactored buttonMarkup
[11:54:48] <arschmitz> we already taked about btnmarkup in the hang out and ways to get rid of it
[11:54:54] <johnbender> cool
[11:54:57] <johnbender> worst case
[11:54:58] <arschmitz> and page.sections im getting rid of already
[11:55:02] <johnbender> $.mobile._registry
[11:55:08] <uGoMobi> right
[11:55:12] <johnbender> alright
[11:55:14] <johnbender> enough detail
[11:55:16] <johnbender> toddmparker: ?
[11:55:18] <johnbender> next?
[11:55:29] <toddmparker> that's great
[11:55:29] <johnbender> unless you have questions
[11:55:49] <toddmparker> I see johnbender was being productive today
[11:55:50] <toddmparker> https://github.com/Wilto/Dynamic-Carousel/pull/91
[11:55:51] <b-ot> toddmparker: Pull request #91 by johnbender (21m 3s ago): Ask, and ye shall receive.
[11:55:57] <johnbender> :)
[11:56:01] <johnbender> the ascii art is crude
[11:56:03] <johnbender> sorry about that
[11:56:12] <johnbender> first one I came across
[11:56:18] <toddmparker> niiice
[11:56:41] <toddmparker> cool, thanks johnbender
[11:56:51] <toddmparker> who wants to go next
[11:57:09] <toddmparker> (gseguin - The 1.2-stable branch is also updated now)
[11:57:13] <arschmitz> i can dont have much
[11:57:26] <gseguin> toddmparker: you're way too good at multi-tasking
[11:57:39] <toddmparker> i dunno about that
[11:57:42] <arschmitz> just working on removing page.sections and making toolbar widget been super busy on other stuff
[11:57:47] <toddmparker> i wander away all the time on IRC
[11:57:55] <_|Nix|_> Oh no!
[11:57:58] <_|Nix|_> The meeting is early!
[11:58:03] <toddmparker> arschmitz: cool. and sorry :)
[11:58:03] <_|Nix|_> I'm sooo sorry!
[11:58:11] <toddmparker> or you are late _|Nix|_
[11:58:16] <toddmparker> np
[11:58:18] <_|Nix|_> Waaay!
[11:58:19] <toddmparker> how goes?
[11:58:20] <arschmitz> toddmparker: ha ha not a problem
[11:58:22] <agcolom> yep (toddmparker in Europe we're still in winter time)
[11:58:25] <_|Nix|_> Forgot the time difference ...
[11:58:27] <toddmparker> oooh
[11:58:28] <uGoMobi> same here
[11:58:34] <_|Nix|_> Important thing!
[11:58:36] <toddmparker> yeah, we sprang forward
[11:58:46] <_|Nix|_> Changsuk's team had a great idea to improve startup time.
[11:58:56] <_|Nix|_> Do not load any of the widget definitions.
[11:58:56] <toddmparker> yeah?
[11:59:02] <toddmparker> (agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uJuDYF-FcBk6EhzWXjVrDlRIVWT_npHwsCxQIQZa9ho/edit#)
[11:59:09] <_|Nix|_> We load the first page, and figure out which widgets we need to load.
[11:59:14] <_|Nix|_> (via initSelector).
[11:59:30] <_|Nix|_> Then, we run $.widget for those widgets, and we run $.widget for the rest of the widgets in an idle loop.
[11:59:42] <toddmparker> seems smart
[11:59:45] <_|Nix|_> So, the page can be displayed while we load the rest of the widgets.
[11:59:50] <toddmparker> did they do a POC?
[11:59:52] <_|Nix|_> They said it improved startup time by ~60ms.
[12:00:01] <toddmparker> not too shabby
[12:00:02] <_|Nix|_> What's a POC.
[12:00:03] <_|Nix|_> ?
[12:00:05] <arschmitz> hmm not bad
[12:00:11] <uGoMobi> proof of concept?
[12:00:16] <toddmparker> sorry, proof of concept
[12:00:19] <_|Nix|_> Yes. PR on Monday, he said.
[12:00:25] <arschmitz> nice
[12:00:32] <toddmparker> yeah, wondering if it was an idea or tested code. PR sounds great
[12:00:33] <_|Nix|_> They stored all the top-level IIFEs in variables.
[12:00:58] <toddmparker> speaking of which, if you have time to chip away at PRs _|Nix|_ - we're falling behind and there's some good stuff there
[12:01:05] <_|Nix|_> I figured we could tie it in with the widget registry, because widgets have deps just like enhance has deps.
[12:01:25] <toddmparker> right. johnbender was just talking about the registry
[12:01:32] <_|Nix|_> Yeah. been doing that, but I need eyes on two of my own: https://github.com/jquery/jquery-mobile/issues/5710 and https://github.com/jquery/jquery-mobile/issues/5768
[12:01:33] <b-ot> _|Nix|_: Issue #5710 by mikez302 (2w 18h ago): Duplicated form parameters when form is submitted repeatedly
[12:02:28] <_|Nix|_> I think the registry should wait for either arschmitz to clean up the headers/toolbars, or we should merge my https://github.com/jquery/jquery-mobile/issues/5768 and stick it in $.mobile._private.
[12:02:28] <toddmparker> cool. keep nudging people in IRC to give those a look
[12:02:28] <b-ot> _|Nix|_: Issue #5768 by gabrielschulhof (8h 28m ago): _private: New NS to bunch up stuff that has to be exposed to other parts...
[12:02:47] <_|Nix|_> Sorry to barge in like this.
[12:03:08] <toddmparker> _|Nix|_: we talked earlier about you being on the API/widget team so these all seem like good topics to discuss
[12:03:30] <_|Nix|_> Yeah. I saw that in the agenda. I'd be happy to work on that.
[12:03:32] <toddmparker> good to come up with a plan for how we handle these type of things up front for 1.4
[12:03:35] <toddmparker> cool
[12:04:12] <toddmparker> anything else to report _|Nix|_
[12:04:35] <_|Nix|_> Nope. Just bug fixes and PR merges.
[12:05:10] <toddmparker> great
[12:05:15] <toddmparker> uGoMobi?
[12:05:19] <uGoMobi> sure
[12:05:50] <uGoMobi> been busy too so just little bit triage and demo center bug fixes
[12:06:06] <toddmparker> cool, thanks
[12:06:08] <uGoMobi> hope to crank on triage again soon
[12:06:11] <toddmparker> is JasonDScott___
[12:06:19] <toddmparker> in the house?
[12:06:22] <JasonDScott___> I am
[12:06:25] <toddmparker> he has some interesting updates
[12:06:28] <toddmparker> hey JasonDScott___
[12:06:38] <toddmparker> saw your PR for the new transitions
[12:06:52] <toddmparker> (cover)
[12:06:54] <JasonDScott___> This week I ported over our BB10 cover transitions
[12:07:00] <uGoMobi> nice
[12:07:02] <toddmparker> be nice to add some new transitions for 1.4
[12:07:21] <toddmparker> they are pretty easy to add (and remove) so having options is nice
[12:07:46] <JasonDScott___> I have also been helping out David, who is on my team with adding a top panel
[12:08:05] <toddmparker> excited to see how the top panel position works out…we had that for a while before dropping it for 1.3. was hard enough getting left/right in there
[12:08:18] <toddmparker> eventually bottom would be cool too
[12:08:19] <JasonDScott___> it should be in shortly, we are trying to find an android to test it on
[12:08:24] <toddmparker> probably the hardest
[12:08:41] <toddmparker> if you give me URLs, happy to test
[12:08:52] <toddmparker> do you have a borwserstack account?
[12:09:01] <JasonDScott___> just a trial
[12:09:05] <toddmparker> won't help with transition smoothness testing, but will tell you if busted
[12:09:15] <toddmparker> we can get you access via jQ
[12:09:25] <arschmitz> scott_gonzalez said he had an open invite for you
[12:09:25] <JasonDScott___> cool
[12:09:42] <toddmparker> yeah, just ping him and he'll re-send
[12:09:48] <JasonDScott___> will do
[12:09:50] <toddmparker> very helpful for testing
[12:10:11] <scott_gonzalez> JasonDScott___: Just tell me which email address to send the invite to.
[12:10:18] <JasonDScott___> I am mostly worried about the animation smoothness more than any tho
[12:10:18] <toddmparker> I got a newer BB10 device this week and did some testing with JasonDScott___ and Eli from RI. Flagged a few issues
[12:10:19] <arschmitz> yeah not a replacement for real thing but can expose timing problems too
[12:10:29] <JasonDScott___> scott_gonzalez: me@jasondscott.com
[12:10:38] <toddmparker> or plain broken-ness
[12:10:43] <arschmitz> hes not in here right now
[12:10:54] <arschmitz> take that back seperate mods section doh
[12:11:00] <scott_gonzalez> JasonDScott___: Check your inbox :-)
[12:11:06] <toddmparker> BOOM
[12:11:12] <JasonDScott___> scott_gonzalez: thanks!
[12:11:15] <scott_gonzalez> no problem
[12:11:17] <toddmparker> scott_gonzalez is the speed champ of BS access
[12:11:26] <toddmparker> never had to wait more than 7 seconds
[12:11:52] <scott_gonzalez> I may be the BS champ for all things (take BS to mean whatever you want :-P)
[12:12:03] <JasonDScott___> I am also working on slider optimizations it is running pretty sluggish on BB10 especially if there are multiple sliders on a page
[12:12:07] <toddmparker> I left it vague
[12:12:31] <toddmparker> yeah, especially curious on the slider. think we can really speed that up.
[12:12:58] <arschmitz> yeah our slider is bad
[12:12:59] <toddmparker> what did you find so far on the slider?
[12:13:11] <arschmitz> really should just be re written
[12:13:29] <JasonDScott___> We are doing a lot of calcs in refresh that we dont need to
[12:13:48] <JasonDScott___> things that are only changing on the resize
[12:14:12] <JasonDScott___> getting widths of the slider and what not
[12:15:00] <_|Nix|_> arschmitz: Speaking of slider: https://github.com/jquery/jquery-mobile/issues/5644 has general reproduceability ...
[12:15:00] <b-ot> _|Nix|_: Issue #5644 by solo999 (3w 6d ago): Rangeslider makes FF (Mac OS) pause for few sec and throw error "too much recursion" when manually enter right value less than left one and click middle slider area
[12:15:06] <JasonDScott___> I also want to make a separate function to update the value and to refresh the styles. because we are calling it on touchmove
[12:15:42] <toddmparker> good call
[12:15:47] <JasonDScott___> and to redo the styles on every touchmove is too much
[12:15:55] <toddmparker> think lightening it up may fix 5644
[12:16:07] <toddmparker> why would we need to do that anyway?
[12:16:07] <_|Nix|_> toddmparker: 5644 is a logic error.
[12:16:15] <toddmparker> oh
[12:16:40] <arschmitz> yeah its because no update is done till blur
[12:16:53] <toddmparker> sorry, closed the wrong tab
[12:16:55] <arschmitz> but then they trigger a change by clicking which then reads the value
[12:17:11] <arschmitz> so it causes conflict
[12:17:20] <_|Nix|_> arschmitz: Yeah, but for some reason the min > max logic doesn't catch it and correct it.
[12:17:37] <toddmparker> arschmitz: you might have some ideas since you just did quite a bit of slider work
[12:17:59] <arschmitz> yeah i do lol
[12:17:59] <_|Nix|_> arschmitz: Instead of reversing the values, or clamping, or whatever, it ends up setting a value that is equal to the value already set.
[12:18:27] <arschmitz> yeah i really think it needs a major refactor
[12:18:30] <_|Nix|_> arschmitz: I guess the slider should short-circuit if you set a value that's already set, and not emit any signals.
[12:18:32] <arschmitz> from what iv seen
[12:18:58] <arschmitz> i acheived a slider with better performance in less then half the lines
[12:19:02] <arschmitz> and works with selects
[12:19:14] <arschmitz> and is both single and dual handle
[12:19:34] <arschmitz> and a bunch of other features we wont want
[12:19:51] <toddmparker> or might want
[12:20:03] <arschmitz> yeah probably not parent constraint
[12:20:04] <toddmparker> but yeah, it's a very old widget
[12:20:08] <arschmitz> but yes for highlight drag
[12:20:09] <_|Nix|_> arschmitz: Yeah, that's another thing ... the slider seems to have a dual personality with the select thing ... there are lots of places where we branch depending on whether it's a select or an input. Might be worth splitting into two widgets, especially if we can minimize redundancy.
[12:20:11] <toddmparker> right
[12:20:28] <arschmitz> _|Nix|_ we dont support selects
[12:20:30] <uGoMobi> +1
[12:20:43] <toddmparker> right - where do you see selects refs _|Nix|_
[12:20:48] <toddmparker> giving me a heart attack
[12:20:49] <uGoMobi> flip toggle is a select
[12:20:54] <_|Nix|_> Wha ... is that gone?
[12:20:58] <arschmitz> ah yeah that
[12:21:00] <toddmparker> oooh
[12:21:02] <toddmparker> right
[12:21:09] <_|Nix|_> How do we do the [[] Yes ] widget?
[12:21:09] <arschmitz> yeah that should be seperate i think
[12:21:15] <toddmparker> yeah
[12:21:24] <_|Nix|_> Definitely.
[12:21:28] <toddmparker> any maybe be radios so it can be mostly css?
[12:21:37] <arschmitz> i could probably get down to ~300 lines total
[12:21:43] <arschmitz> in jqm
[12:22:01] <toddmparker> http://codepen.io/smt/pen/oywvG
[12:22:07] <arschmitz> one i just wrote is mostly no jquery and no widget factory so there is improvement to be had
[12:22:23] <arschmitz> toddmparker: very nice
[12:22:23] <toddmparker> (doesn't drag, but…)
[12:22:47] <arschmitz> toddmparker: could make it not truely drag and animate on swipe or something?
[12:23:01] <toddmparker> could
[12:23:09] <toddmparker> use the swipe event
[12:23:27] <toddmparker> being able to really drag it is nice too, but not if it adds a ton of bloat
[12:23:55] <uGoMobi> http://cssdeck.com/labs/css-checkbox-styles
[12:23:57] <_|Nix|_> Another thing worth considering is API for setting min/max/step
[12:23:59] <arschmitz> yeah either way was just a thought
[12:24:00] <toddmparker> but i'd like to give each widget a fresh look and see if we can get mostly there with css like that and add just a bit of scripting as an enhancement
[12:24:09] <_|Nix|_> We should not assume the slider is based on an input of type range.
[12:24:11] <uGoMobi> radios makes more sense than checkbox though
[12:24:31] <arschmitz> yes
[12:24:35] <toddmparker> cool uGoMobi
[12:24:41] <toddmparker> lot we can do in css now
[12:25:05] <uGoMobi> (if we make IE7 C-grade)
[12:25:10] <arschmitz> and 8
[12:25:10] <_|Nix|_> There's no better feeling than implementing a new feature in -53 lines of code :)
[12:25:30] <toddmparker> right.
[12:25:40] <toddmparker> looking forward to giving all these a fresh look
[12:26:01] <toddmparker> moving IE7 to C grade is probably gonna happen so we can make some big progress
[12:26:05] <arschmitz> im happy to work with JasonDScott__ on slider
[12:26:17] <arschmitz> and fix it up
[12:26:20] <toddmparker> arschmitz: thanks!
[12:26:32] <toddmparker> think having two sets of eyes is always a good idea
[12:26:42] <JasonDScott___> thanks arschmitz
[12:26:56] <arschmitz> i think we can make a major win there
[12:27:09] <arschmitz> might want to hold off until we finalize 1.4 widget decisions htoug
[12:27:10] <toddmparker> agreed
[12:27:29] <arschmitz> so we dont re-write before re-writing
[12:27:45] <JasonDScott___> ok
[12:27:50] <toddmparker> uGoMobi: that checkbox page has 680 lines of CSS!
[12:28:17] <uGoMobi> yeah but a lot of things that are superfluous
[12:28:24] <toddmparker> we should plan on doing some hangouts next week to do some 1.4 planning
[12:28:35] <toddmparker> uGoMobi: yeah, i know. just surprised
[12:28:36] <_|Nix|_> Definitely.
[12:29:17] <uGoMobi> yeah nice to get things started for 1.4
[12:33:32] <_|Nix|_> Hey! Things went quiet. Is everybody still here?
[12:33:56] <uGoMobi> I am
[12:34:07] <_|Nix|_> Are we done for the day?
[12:34:18] <uGoMobi> think so
[12:34:32] <_|Nix|_> Aha! K ... back to -dev then.
[12:35:19] <uGoMobi> going to grab dinner... later all