[09:01:35] <rwaldron> Hi!
[09:01:59] <_markelog> hey
[09:02:07] <DaveMethvin> hey!
[09:02:22] <rwaldron> I have a FirefoxOS feature that I need to wrap up today (mid review) so ping me if there is any discussion re: the data-as-expando patch
[09:02:46] <DaveMethvin> ok, i pushed it off to the 2.2 version
[09:02:49] <rwaldron> Rad
[09:02:58] <rwaldron> I need to rebase
[09:03:01] <rwaldron> freebase
[09:03:03] <m_gol> present
[09:03:04] * rwaldron shrugs
[09:03:04] <b-ot> rwaldron: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[09:03:54] <DaveMethvin> i think we have the tickets down pretty low right now, which is good
[09:04:25] <m_gol> I see new browsers in TestSwarm :)
[09:04:34] <DaveMethvin> that's not good!
[09:04:38] <DaveMethvin> :)
[09:04:47] <m_gol> IE11 & Safari 7.0 still missing, though
[09:04:48] <m_gol> ;)
[09:05:08] <m_gol> Chrome 31 Ajax fail
[09:05:19] <DaveMethvin> the chrome 31 fail on ajax is due to that known chrome bug
[09:05:24] <m_gol> yeah, right
[09:05:29] <DaveMethvin> which is annoying
[09:05:33] <m_gol> it's fixed already
[09:05:35] <m_gol> AFAIK
[09:05:46] <DaveMethvin> NOT IN CHROME 31! :)
[09:05:53] <m_gol> but BrowserStack doesn't update its browsers
[09:05:56] <m_gol> not?
[09:05:57] <m_gol> :(
[09:06:27] <DaveMethvin> the latest released version is 31 right now
[09:06:39] <DaveMethvin> canary is 33
[09:07:00] <m_gol> yeah, I know, but they tend to backport more critical bugs
[09:07:38] <DaveMethvin> for some reason they didn't fix this for a while, it was reported long ago
[09:08:42] <DaveMethvin> i was gonna verify it was fixed on canary but i can't even get the tests to start on mylocalhost
[09:09:39] <m_gol> works fine on my Canary
[09:09:46] <m_gol> and fails on stable
[09:09:56] <DaveMethvin> well good i guess
[09:10:03] <DaveMethvin> dunno why my canary is barfing
[09:10:04] <m_gol> we should mark it as an expected failure specifically for Chrome 31
[09:10:07] <DaveMethvin> seems to be bothered by localhost
[09:10:12] <m_gol> dunno about 32
[09:10:19] <m_gol> to not get these errors all the time
[09:10:29] <DaveMethvin> yes
[09:11:05] <gibson042> hullo hullo
[09:11:09] <DaveMethvin> hey gibson042
[09:12:05] <DaveMethvin> okay, all 1.11/2.1 tix are currently assigned
[09:12:45] <DaveMethvin> timmywil has 4, i have 3, m_gol and gibson042 have 1 each
[09:13:15] <DaveMethvin> everybody okay with their assignments
[09:13:16] <DaveMethvin> ?
[09:13:17] <m_gol> I'd like to get all the tests to pass on iOS7 and include it in TestSwarm then
[09:13:23] <m_gol> but probably not before the 3rd beta ;)
[09:13:39] <DaveMethvin> well the sooner the better
[09:14:28] <DaveMethvin> lets look at pulls
[09:15:01] <m_gol> it's not bad, we're failing only 2 tests on iOS7
[09:15:12] <DaveMethvin> and those are prob safari bugs
[09:15:28] <DaveMethvin> i know we had a couple of tickets reporting bugs
[09:16:02] <DaveMethvin> so https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1459
[09:16:21] <DaveMethvin> not sure about the background on this one
[09:16:37] <DaveMethvin> but it needs some explanation and tests if it should stay
[09:16:42] <DaveMethvin> and i wouldn't do it as a prefilter
[09:16:53] <DaveMethvin> should we kick this to jaubourg for review?
[09:17:09] <_markelog> i think the guy should rebase this
[09:17:18] <_markelog> it has a lot of needless noise
[09:17:30] <DaveMethvin> well that too but i was more worried about the why at this point
[09:17:39] <DaveMethvin> he did it off the release tag which is wrong
[09:17:44] <m_gol> jaubourg suggested a prefilter approach here: http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/13240#comment:11
[09:17:49] <m_gol> yes
[09:18:18] <DaveMethvin> right but i think that was assuming we wouldn't land anything? lemme read that
[09:18:26] <_markelog> activeX also supports other non-standtart methods
[09:18:51] <_markelog> so i don't we should make a path request a special case
[09:19:20] <_markelog> *patch request
[09:21:15] <DaveMethvin> this patch tries to do activex on all browsers?
[09:21:43] <m_gol> it seems so :)
[09:21:56] <gibson042> DaveMethvin: no, it's in an `if ( window.ActiveXObject )` block
[09:22:21] <gibson042> but is definitely not a form in which we'd solve this problem
[09:22:34] <DaveMethvin> which means it wont run in ie11 ... is that good or bad? :)
[09:23:10] <DaveMethvin> for now, markelog's comment is fine, let's see if they come back to do that
[09:23:30] <m_gol> IE11 has native PATCH support, the fix is for IE8
[09:23:54] <DaveMethvin> yeah i just didn't know when that occurred...ie9 was okay then?
[09:23:57] <m_gol> I added more links in a comment
[09:24:29] <_markelog> i would actually do it in reverse if it is one of methods that supported in IE xhr - use xhr if - not use activeX, if it available
[09:24:33] <DaveMethvin> feature testing this stuff is tricky since there's no direct feature test
[09:24:53] <_markelog> we don't need to feature test it
[09:25:06] <_markelog> ie xhr has support for handful of http methods
[09:25:23] <_markelog> they use - is an edge case
[09:25:25] <DaveMethvin> also supports local files
[09:26:00] <DaveMethvin> https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1458 looked good
[09:26:35] <_markelog> :-)
[09:26:41] <m_gol> yup
[09:26:46] <m_gol> thanks for that _markelog
[09:27:01] <m_gol> I was trying out shrinkwrap as well but it's pretty broken now
[09:27:14] <_markelog> hm, broken?
[09:27:35] <DaveMethvin> yeah i saw your comments on twitter m_gol
[09:27:47] <DaveMethvin> btw https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1457 looks good too
[09:27:50] <m_gol> yeah, not stable (as in: running it twice doesn't produce the same output), if you don't clean it up it still triggers additional requests, sometimes it mishandles GitHub handles etc.
[09:28:25] <DaveMethvin> that's not good
[09:28:30] <m_gol> I'd love to use it if it worked as it should because just locking versions in package.json doesn't protect us from grunt task dependencies breaking in patch releases
[09:28:45] <DaveMethvin> well we
[09:29:01] <DaveMethvin> re never completely protected if we use any "global"tools
[09:30:01] <DaveMethvin> https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1455 imma just gonna fix that and give a shout out to tcort
[09:30:35] <m_gol> DaveMethvin: would you be open to using this in our setup? https://npmjs.org/package/grunt-check-dependencies
[09:31:00] <m_gol> I can create a pull request for testing if I have at least a yellow light ;)
[09:31:23] <DaveMethvin> it would be worth having i think ... i worry about npm install when i switch between branches
[09:31:35] <m_gol> I was looking at other solutions
[09:31:36] <DaveMethvin> we've been close enough that usually it doesn't matter
[09:31:44] <DaveMethvin> but one day i will be bitten i know
[09:32:09] <m_gol> there is https://npmjs.org/package/grunt-check-modules
[09:32:14] <m_gol> but it just runs `npm ls`
[09:32:17] <m_gol> and that's not enough
[09:32:24] <DaveMethvin> _markelog do you want to look at that activex patch?
[09:32:30] <m_gol> it doesn't e.g. catch not matching depenencies
[09:32:36] <_markelog> i already did
[09:32:38] <m_gol> ok, I'll just prepare a PR and we'll see :)
[09:32:57] <DaveMethvin> i meant, potentially write a fix if this guy can't
[09:33:07] <_markelog> if we want to fix it, what damage could we afford?
[09:33:38] <DaveMethvin> you mean, like when we use it at the wrong time?
[09:33:39] <_markelog> do we want in beta-3?
[09:33:54] <_markelog> i meant size diff
[09:34:08] <DaveMethvin> oh, i'm not sure
[09:34:39] <DaveMethvin> i don't have a good feel for how big it would be
[09:34:49] <_markelog> okay, i will try to make a fix on this week
[09:34:57] <_markelog> we can go from there i suppose
[09:35:00] <DaveMethvin> there would seem to be some trickiness to get it only applied where needed
[09:35:29] <_markelog> it might be, but it looks pretty simple right now
[09:35:37] <DaveMethvin> if we could get it into beta3 that would be good, otherwise i'd push to 1.12
[09:35:49] <DaveMethvin> since i'm hoping we don't have a beta4
[09:35:53] <DaveMethvin> :)
[09:36:02] <_markelog> maybe test would uncover something, it's IE so you never know Ж-)
[09:36:18] <_markelog> yeah all right
[09:36:31] <DaveMethvin> lol yeah
[09:36:59] <DaveMethvin> _markelog were you going to land https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1449
[09:37:26] <_markelog> i would wait until 2.2, it's pretty big change if you think about it
[09:37:53] <DaveMethvin> oh thta's right
[09:38:01] <DaveMethvin> i forgot to mark these
[09:39:01] <m_gol> I'll mark this one test as an expected failure in Chrome 31
[09:39:42] <DaveMethvin> yeah that is fine
[09:42:05] <DaveMethvin> can we just give up on  https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1421 ?
[09:42:34] <DaveMethvin> i like small code but this is just a pain
[09:43:17] <m_gol> we have a lot of commits like that...
[09:43:24] <markelog> speaking from experience, this guy spend a lot of time to do this
[09:43:47] <m_gol> -18 seems pretty nice
[09:44:13] <markelog> DaveMethvin: what are your concerns?
[09:44:40] <gibson042> I don't see a compelling reason *not* to land it
[09:44:53] <markelog> m_gol: -19 :-)
[09:45:20] <m_gol> and it's stale mostly because we didn't respond to the latest comment of the guy
[09:45:22] <gibson042> is it stale now?
[09:45:23] <gibson042> oh
[09:45:31] <DaveMethvin> okay, well who wants to land this?
[09:45:56] <gibson042> I'll do it
[09:46:15] <DaveMethvin> done
[09:47:23] <DaveMethvin> what do you guys think about https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1429
[09:47:24] <m_gol> I can land https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1436
[09:47:32] <m_gol> timmywil & markelog seemed to agree on it
[09:47:39] <DaveMethvin> coo
[09:47:42] <DaveMethvin> cool even
[09:48:43] <DaveMethvin> i really am not a fan of having Callbacks exposed at all but i'm also not sure about the utility of .forget()
[09:49:04] <markelog> i'm do not actually, i'm neither
[09:49:39] <DaveMethvin> it's only a line but i'd rather people don't use it :)
[09:49:46] <m_gol> well, the fact is it is exposed ;)
[09:50:20] <DaveMethvin> we've had exactly one request for this feature in all the time it's been exposed
[09:50:29] <DaveMethvin> so that doesn't sound like a big number to me
[09:50:34] <m_gol> yeah, right
[09:51:22] <m_gol> I don't get the example under http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/14542
[09:51:58] <DaveMethvin> well i think it would be the case of "somethng happened and i don't want to do anything anymore"
[09:52:37] <DaveMethvin> i can see the use case but am not sure that Callbacks were the right solution in the first place
[09:53:22] <DaveMethvin> when I've looked at using them either they were too complex for my use case or not flexible enough
[09:54:17] <DaveMethvin> let's just push this off to 1.12/2.2
[09:54:19] <m_gol> I haven't actually used them directly, I prefer to just use promises
[09:54:58] <DaveMethvin> okay, any other stuff we shoudl discuss for beta3?
[09:55:10] <DaveMethvin> should be doable by thursday i think
[09:55:23] <DaveMethvin> although timmywil has several tickets and i'm not sure where he is on those
[09:55:59] <DaveMethvin> alrighty then, let's call it a meeting
[09:56:03] <DaveMethvin> thanks guys!