[09:00:30] <DaveMethvin> timmywil rwaldron gnarf mikesherov orkel m_gol jaubourg gibson042: meetin' time!
[09:00:39] <gibson042> OH YEAH!
[09:00:55] <DaveMethvin> oh man, now i have to live up to it
[09:00:57] <timmywil> boosh
[09:01:17] <DaveMethvin> i maded you guys an ajenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MrLFvoxW7GMlH9KK-bwypn77cC98jUnz7sMW1rg_TP4/edit
[09:01:20] <orkel> hey
[09:01:59] <DaveMethvin> so it seems like 2.0 got a pretty warm welcome
[09:02:11] <DaveMethvin> at least no pitchforks
[09:02:22] <m_gol> ;)
[09:02:44] <DaveMethvin> i put some tix in the agenda for 2.0.1, i think gibson042 has already done a couple of them
[09:03:01] <m_gol> too bad we didn't get to deprecating this context stuff before 2.0
[09:03:05] <m_gol> but, well, it happens
[09:03:13] <DaveMethvin> yeah
[09:03:26] <timmywil> hey, looking at these tickets, I'd like to bring up that it would be great if the changeset link that our hook inserts was actually a link
[09:03:27] <DaveMethvin> there are always a few things we find at the last minute
[09:03:34] <DaveMethvin> timmywil yeah
[09:03:45] <DaveMethvin> it would be great if the bug tracker worked most of the time
[09:04:02] <DaveMethvin> i still have an item to turn bugs.jquery.com into a "where do i go page"
[09:04:04] <timmywil> I think it's just a matter of setting the href correctly in our commit hook
[09:04:04] <gibson042> yes, Y U NO etc. etc.
[09:04:05] <b-ot> gibson042: (屮'Д')屮
[09:04:16] <DaveMethvin> rather than a "let me file a bug against core incorrectly" page
[09:04:46] <DaveMethvin> timmywil i thought it was on the trac side but could be wrong
[09:04:56] <timmywil> ah could be
[09:05:01] <gibson042> question: was it ever correct?
[09:05:07] <timmywil> I don't think so
[09:05:10] <DaveMethvin> might have been when we were on svn
[09:05:20] <DaveMethvin> the "get off my lawn days"
[09:05:32] <m_gol> oh man, it has to be long time ago...
[09:05:38] <DaveMethvin> 2008 or so
[09:06:22] <DaveMethvin> so on that YUI and closure thing, should we just shorten it to bool rather than argue they're doin it rong?
[09:06:48] <m_gol> I don't care about yuglify if it's EOL but Closure might be important
[09:07:08] <m_gol> we probably should do both, i.e. rename and ping sb from Google about the Closure issue
[09:07:52] <DaveMethvin> i dunno if anyone is using them and targeting ES3 envs where "boolean" is reserved
[09:08:00] <DaveMethvin> i dunno if those even exist!
[09:08:28] <m_gol> Closure needs the --screw-ie8 option ;)
[09:08:32] <DaveMethvin> lol
[09:08:34] <DaveMethvin> yeah
[09:08:56] <DaveMethvin> i'd vote for just going with "bool" and being done with it
[09:09:12] <m_gol> +1, though I'd ping Google guys, too
[09:09:45] <DaveMethvin> yeah, chad killingsworth is still working on Closure AO so i can mention to him as well
[09:10:10] <m_gol> DaveMethvin, I don't seem to have access to this Google Doc
[09:10:31] <DaveMethvin> i think it's public, lemme check
[09:10:50] <DaveMethvin> yeah public https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MrLFvoxW7GMlH9KK-bwypn77cC98jUnz7sMW1rg_TP4/edit?usp=sharing
[09:11:16] <DaveMethvin> i'm getting an error from google docs sometimes
[09:11:22] <DaveMethvin> beeen kinda flakey this morning
[09:11:34] <m_gol> I meant edit access but nvm ;)
[09:11:43] <m_gol> we can't remove context in 2.1/1.11
[09:11:51] <m_gol> since it's not deprecated yet
[09:12:21] <DaveMethvin> yeah, but it gives us something to look forward to :)
[09:12:31] <gibson042> it will be as of 1.10, though... is *that* enough notice?
[09:12:50] <DaveMethvin> for 1.11/2.1? definitely
[09:13:18] <m_gol> hm, so we're not trying to keep complete parity between 1.10/2.0?
[09:13:41] <m_gol> $.isPlainObject, now $.fn.context
[09:13:48] <gibson042> deprecation is outside the code
[09:13:54] <gibson042> it doesn't break parity
[09:14:13] <m_gol> true :)
[09:14:14] <m_gol> ok
[09:14:36] <m_gol> how will it look on api.jquery.com?
[09:14:41] <DaveMethvin> and some diffs are okay, it depends on the specific behavior
[09:14:57] <m_gol> as deprecated as soon as we ship 1.10?
[09:14:57] <gnarf> here
[09:15:11] <DaveMethvin> yeah i will have it in a blog post
[09:15:15] <DaveMethvin> hey gnarf
[09:15:54] <gnarf> actually kinda afk, but will read
[09:15:59] <DaveMethvin> so did we get agreement on changing bool to boolean?  gibson042 timmywil ?
[09:16:08] <gibson042> works for me
[09:16:09] <DaveMethvin> whoops boolean to bool
[09:16:13] <m_gol> :)
[09:16:17] <gibson042> that too :)
[09:16:17] <m_gol> yep, +1 from me
[09:16:40] <DaveMethvin> okay
[09:17:35] <DaveMethvin> tracking the parallel versions is kind of tricky
[09:17:53] <DaveMethvin> so keep your eyes open on issues that need to be in two different versions
[09:17:58] <DaveMethvin> any idea on a better way?
[09:18:07] <DaveMethvin> two tickets seems extreme
[09:18:29] <m_gol> we have 1.10/2.0 milestones etc.
[09:18:32] <gibson042> I like the joint milestone approach
[09:18:35] <m_gol> yeah
[09:18:45] <DaveMethvin> so this would be 1.10/2.0.1?
[09:18:48] <m_gol> it'll be fine for most, some bugs might need 1.10 or 2.0 only
[09:18:50] <m_gol> yeah
[09:18:57] <DaveMethvin> ok worksforme
[09:19:11] <DaveMethvin> such fun to make changelogs lately
[09:19:15] <m_gol> ;)
[09:20:00] <DaveMethvin> so the 1.10 schedule
[09:20:08] <DaveMethvin> any particular feelings one way or the other?
[09:20:27] <m_gol> beta before 2.0.1 might be OK
[09:20:46] <m_gol> though betas are not widely used anyway so I'm not sure if it matters
[09:20:51] <DaveMethvin> i was thinking originally it would be nice to have 1.10 in June but if we want to keep a 1.x/2.x in sync it's kind of nice to have the two released relatively close to each other
[09:21:15] <m_gol> yeah, we had some problems with keeping 1.9 & 2.0 in sync
[09:21:19] <DaveMethvin> i think we're in pretty good shape for 1.10 right now, once the 2.0 fixes are picked into it
[09:21:24] <gibson042> I'd say the sooner the better; we ought to have corresponding 1.x and 2.x releases to come as concurrently as possible
[09:21:25] <m_gol> so better not to repeat such long breaks between releases
[09:22:15] <DaveMethvin> yeah i was thinking we were moving too quickly for people to catch up, but leaving that long gap before 2.0 makes it harder on us
[09:22:15] <m_gol> otherwise we'll always have some fixes we want to merge asap and differences grow
[09:22:37] <gibson042> we can let everyone catch up after 1.10
[09:22:49] <DaveMethvin> that's what you say NOW :)
[09:22:54] <gibson042> :P
[09:23:06] <DaveMethvin> well then how about May 8 for 1.10 beta 1?
[09:23:16] <DaveMethvin> seems like we can do that pretty easily
[09:23:24] <m_gol> yep
[09:23:31] <m_gol> the sooner the better
[09:23:39] <DaveMethvin> alright
[09:24:39] <gibson042> +1
[09:25:03] <DaveMethvin> just to put a date on it, maybe an rc a week later?  we can move it if there are a lot of issues
[09:25:49] <gibson042> why not call May 8 the RC instead of beta 1?
[09:26:22] <DaveMethvin> I'm not sure that we're getting good testing from 2.0 final
[09:26:23] <m_gol> only one pre-release? will it be enough?
[09:26:53] <gibson042> depends on if it's likely to have an impact on the number of people who use it
[09:26:56] <m_gol> yeah, not sure how many people actually use it on websites because of oldIE
[09:27:03] <timmywil> well, technically, you'd expect 1.10 to have the same bugs as 2.0
[09:27:13] <timmywil> so RC seems fine to me
[09:27:19] <m_gol> unless you live in Poland where all IEs have <18% market share ;)
[09:27:22] <DaveMethvin> Hey, we could move beta 1 back to May 2 if it seems everything is ready
[09:27:34] <DaveMethvin> that still gives us this week and most of next
[09:27:37] <timmywil> 1.10.1 can fix the same bugs as 2.0.1
[09:28:02] <m_gol> so maybe we should just skip 1.10 and release 1.10.1
[09:28:02] <DaveMethvin> we shoudln't ship 1.10 with bugs we can pick from 2.0.1 tho
[09:28:17] <gibson042> nor would it even be easy to do so at this point
[09:28:25] <DaveMethvin> revert!
[09:28:27] <DaveMethvin> :)
[09:28:38] <m_gol> intentionally revert fixes? seems extreme :D
[09:28:42] <timmywil> fixing them earlier is fine, just saying we probably don't need to worry too much about bugs we don't know about yet
[09:28:46] <gibson042> we put some bugs back in... happy easter egg hunting!
[09:29:00] <DaveMethvin> timmywil it's the bugs you don't know about that always end up biting you :P
[09:29:23] <m_gol> 3 fixed bugs = 1 new one ;)
[09:29:26] <DaveMethvin> so do you want to do beta 2 on May 2 then?
[09:29:30] <DaveMethvin> beta 1
[09:29:32] <DaveMethvin> geez
[09:29:34] <m_gol> OK for me
[09:29:53] <timmywil> sounds good
[09:29:54] <m_gol> and then rc.1 later in May
[09:29:58] <DaveMethvin> yeah
[09:30:03] <gibson042> see DaveMethvin, we're making good on the meeting start
[09:30:16] <DaveMethvin> or even final if it's really quiet on bugs
[09:31:31] <DaveMethvin> just putting some dates there
[09:32:07] <DaveMethvin> so jumping ahead to the jquery migrate bug
[09:32:32] <DaveMethvin> some guy wrote a blog about a bug reopened by migrate
[09:32:37] <DaveMethvin> link's in the issue
[09:33:02] <DaveMethvin> i need to re-close that ... i don't think it's too hard but i can't remember why i pulled out the check
[09:33:05] <DaveMethvin> i guess i'll find out
[09:33:08] <m_gol> and explained he couldn't find a working bug tracker ;)
[09:33:20] <DaveMethvin> lots of lame excuses
[09:33:31] <m_gol> but he knew how to join IRC later ;D
[09:33:38] <DaveMethvin> he found the migrate tracker about 5 minutes after i created the ticket
[09:34:07] <DaveMethvin> anyway, it kind of relates to the issues we're trying to fix with 1.11/2.1
[09:34:17] <DaveMethvin> which is to make it hard to run scripts by accident
[09:34:58] <DaveMethvin> so Migrate will need a 1.2 version relatively soon once I fix that
[09:35:24] <timmywil> Nobody has said that $(document.hash) is poor practice yet, right?
[09:35:34] <gibson042> lol
[09:35:39] <DaveMethvin> we did, but people still do it yeah
[09:35:41] <m_gol> ...
[09:35:50] <timmywil> ok, just checkin
[09:35:58] <DaveMethvin> "jQuery: protecting people from their own stupidity since 2006"
[09:36:18] <DaveMethvin> it doesn't help that $() accepts just about anything
[09:36:42] <DaveMethvin> but i just know people are going to complain when we close their XSS holes
[09:36:58] <timmywil> WHY AREN'T MY SCRIPTS RUNNING
[09:36:58] <DaveMethvin> even if we give them perfectly good ways to do things
[09:37:11] <DaveMethvin> it does help that we never documented any of that :D
[09:37:23] <DaveMethvin> laziness FTW!
[09:37:59] <m_gol> I think some people have a problem writing $($.parseHTML(...)) instead of $(...)
[09:38:14] <DaveMethvin> yeah, its' ugly but if you're reading that it makes you stop and wonder
[09:38:16] <DaveMethvin> just as it should
[09:38:35] <DaveMethvin> whereas $(selector) where selector is a variable that happens to have HTML .... :)
[09:38:35] <timmywil> $("<div/>").html() is fine too
[09:38:40] <DaveMethvin> right
[09:39:14] <m_gol> I think the main problem is $("   <div>")
[09:39:27] <DaveMethvin> agreed, and if we just say we don't run scripts we can trim those spaces
[09:39:29] <m_gol> it's common if you put inside HTML from some file
[09:39:40] <gibson042> yeah, timmywil was right on that one and people seem to be allergic to $( $.trim(...) )
[09:39:41] <m_gol> yes, that should solve most problems
[09:39:49] <DaveMethvin> i hate when timmywil is right
[09:39:53] <m_gol> ;)
[09:39:53] <DaveMethvin> :P
[09:39:56] <timmywil> ha
[09:40:07] <DaveMethvin> fortunatley doesn't happen often, whew
[09:40:14] <timmywil> yea, don't sweat it
[09:40:17] <DaveMethvin> okay, anybody have anything else?
[09:40:31] <DaveMethvin> i think we're in decent shape here
[09:40:33] <timmywil> i"m hungry
[09:40:33] <gibson042> just a passionate burning hatred for replaceWith
[09:40:38] <DaveMethvin> lol
[09:40:54] <DaveMethvin> gibson042 you started picking at it, and now it's bleeding
[09:41:08] <gibson042> too late for amputation? ;)
[09:41:13] <timmywil> the word pandora comes to mind
[09:41:16] <DaveMethvin> put it in an optional module
[09:41:21] <DaveMethvin> and then lose it
[09:41:36] <timmywil> grunt custom -replaceWith
[09:41:51] <DaveMethvin> hey, worked for wrap
[09:42:18] <DaveMethvin> okay then, i guess we'll congregate back in -dev when needed
[09:42:33] <DaveMethvin> thanks guys!