[12:00:19] looks like I need to put out a new jquery-migrate! [12:00:40] DaveMethvin, m_gol, markelog https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uhcW9_TlSwD8JnO1_HNnSYJAriTK9WYZ8uQNDvtAAhA/edit# [12:01:01] DaveMethvin: yakadoo [12:01:10] hey-hey! [12:01:20] i'll look at that bug just reported [12:01:43] what is up with our 2.2/1.12? [12:01:47] stable, all good? [12:02:02] looks like it [12:02:18] no issues still open [12:02:43] Docs are in [12:02:50] Just need a migrate release [12:02:58] cool! [12:03:18] seems it should be a good one [12:03:21] fingers cross [12:03:42] yeah either it's pretty clean or nobody is using it yet! [12:03:48] I committed the new Sizzle, had to enable an ascii-only option in uglify to get an unobtrusive charset for our jquery.min.js [12:03:57] DaveMethvin: yup! [12:04:01] present [12:04:24] it is like giving a talk and no question at the end [12:04:31] either you did a great job [12:04:35] or no one cares [12:04:40] ha [12:05:38] I've seen a CanJS problem with hiding some private methods but they're OK now [12:05:40] gibson will be absent today, but he's got a PR for show/hide! [12:06:19] i'm not sure if i get that pr [12:06:24] DaveMethvin: the last blocker is assigned to you [12:06:28] it seems there is no iframe hack [12:06:40] and no ff hack for body/html elements [12:07:02] timmywil: yeah i think i should be able to get to that today [12:07:23] markelog: good comment for the PR [12:07:42] we also need to extensively test this and compare to that table [12:08:02] of expected displays [12:08:07] markelog: perhaps the old default display tests are still there? [12:08:41] i remember gibson removed those [12:08:47] ok [12:08:53] not sure though :) [12:08:58] comment on the PR since he's not here [12:09:17] will do [12:09:20] we are planning to release beta right? [12:09:23] not the final? [12:09:33] I was planning on final [12:10:02] I think it's risky [12:10:08] we had one alpha [12:10:14] for 3.0 maybe we should do a beta [12:10:16] with significant differences [12:10:17] yeah, no beta [12:10:20] half a year ago [12:10:28] i mean, we didn't release a beta, only alpha [12:10:43] still should be pretty good for 12 january ) [12:10:50] and 14 we gonna release final! [12:10:52] yea, I'm skeptical how much info we'd get from a beta [12:10:55] also, migrate isn't ready for the matching 3.0 [12:11:00] ) [12:11:07] we don't get a lot of feedback but I think we get some [12:11:22] show/hide, raf... what else important there? [12:11:26] sounds like I'm the only one opposed. We'll do a beta then. [12:11:30] promise changes [12:11:30] also, some people have bower/npm setups and it's hard for them to test non-released versions from master so no beta = no possibility of feedback grom them [12:11:40] for alpha we received a lot of comments for show/hide [12:11:57] we'll do beta [12:12:13] especially since migrate isn't ready [12:12:16] i think we were talking about an announcement on the 14th? [12:12:30] 12 was it? [12:12:33] Microsoft will announce that we're dropping IE8 support on the 12th [12:12:41] oh i had the wrong date [12:12:45] and 14 is jQuery birthday [12:12:47] but we don't have to release tomorrow [12:13:18] it seems we can though, right? [12:13:26] yeah, we can put up a blog post if a release isn't ready [12:13:27] not sure about the show/hide [12:13:29] i shoudl be able to get my blocker done [12:13:36] not without the show/hide PR and the when + progress stuff [12:13:39] markelog: depends on the state of gibson's PR... [12:13:40] but everything else is pretty much good [12:13:47] yeah, yeah, see above [12:13:49] yea [12:13:52] which I don't see landing tomorrow given the review needed [12:13:59] maybe the 14th [12:14:03] ;) [12:14:10] the blog post can say a beta is coming soon [12:14:12] would be fun to release on jQuery's birthday [12:14:12] we can annonce on 12 and release on 14 [12:14:19] the 14th is a big date, we should try to make that [12:14:29] agreed [12:14:37] seems like a good move! [12:14:45] and since we're doing a beta, I'm only concerned about the 2 blockers that are left [12:15:05] we can finish up the less pressing stuff for final [12:15:16] show/hide is pretty much one the table [12:15:31] i would also suggest to show the table of expected displays in the blog post [12:15:56] and probably in the docs [12:16:17] while that's useful info, need to strike a balance between informative and interesting [12:16:17] it might be too much for the blog post [12:16:42] a table? [12:16:54] I mean, would you pause to read that? [12:16:55] we could update the docs and mention it in the blog post [12:17:17] docs yea [12:17:33] it should be somewhere for reference, i wonder if we should wait until we're sure we're putting it in before committing it to api.jquery.com [12:17:44] exactly [12:17:47] this bug is pissing me off https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/issues/128 [12:17:48] need to check gibson pr [12:17:58] $( "" ).outerWidth(); [12:18:49] does it only happen with migrate? [12:18:52] yeah [12:19:06] remove it from "External Resources" and it "works" [12:19:20] it's a DUMB thing to ask for [12:20:00] it sure is! [12:20:15] I'm confused. It should still work, tho, right? [12:20:17] i guess the latest UI still has this altho master does not [12:20:30] yeah, somehow there is no defaultView [12:20:48] oh well, i'll take a deeper look [12:20:56] really should fix that before doing a new release of Migrate [12:21:01] oh, it's cause UI removed something on master (not even released)? [12:21:25] yeah the code causing the problem is a call to outerWidth from within UI [12:21:29] hm, how could it happens only with migrate i wonder [12:21:29] he just pulled the code out to reduce it [12:21:35] GOOD QUESTION :) [12:21:41] weird [12:21:53] well, it's probably something easy [12:22:05] must be in the constructor for $("") though [12:22:11] since migrate hooks that [12:22:24] the elements it returns must not be the same [12:22:25] also happens with $("1") [12:22:26] For https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/2796, what's the proposed docs change? That context will be ignored for pos selectors? [12:22:30] which is a different path [12:23:06] timmywil: i guess we'd only use it for the upward-path limit? [12:23:40] right, but "A DOM element within which a matching element may be found." doesn't sound that different [12:24:03] true, really we're just documenting a bug we aren't fixing [12:24:10] that is, it's not a rooted selector [12:24:36] so... removal? [12:24:45] can't be removed i think [12:24:53] just don't use it for pos selectors [12:24:58] but keep it in otherwise [12:25:36] oh, I see the difference now [12:25:55] Kinda like qsa's scope [12:26:07] right [12:26:31] Oh, there's already a docs issue. ha [12:26:44] I just wanted to know what to say when opening one, so I could close this. [12:27:16] we need to remove the context in the pos selectors though [12:27:28] :P [12:27:32] so that's a code change ... unless we don't want to do that [12:28:12] ok, updated [12:28:22] sounds good [12:28:47] Lastly, https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/2737 Anything stopping us from landing? [12:29:00] nope [12:29:07] i have the plugin as well [12:29:08] hooray! [12:29:17] I'll add to the blog post [12:29:30] i would land it, but closely look how people would react on this [12:29:45] timmywil: why do we still keep the full built jQuery in the tag? Is jquery-dist usage only planned for 3.0.0? [12:30:01] m_gol: we're already using it [12:30:25] we don't need the dist in the tag, but the release script will need updating [12:30:33] so why keep the built files in detached tags as well? one of the reasons to move was to not bloat the main repo [12:30:34] k [12:30:47] the tag doesn't have built artifacts in the main repo does it? [12:30:51] I'll create an issue [12:30:55] DaveMethvin: it does [12:30:58] oh yeah it does [12:30:59] it still does [12:31:30] is that bad or something? [12:31:46] it bloats the repo and requires detached tags [12:31:47] not terrible, but unnecessary [12:31:55] ideally we'd just tag a commit in the main tree [12:31:59] * in the main line [12:32:05] yea, I can fix that for 3.0 [12:32:08] it shouldn't bloat it that much [12:32:13] since git uses compressions algos [12:32:23] and all that code is already in the repo [12:32:27] I don't think the change will be that hard [12:32:31] it's also confusing; people look for tags but if you specifically don't fetch for tags you only get ones that are lying on the branch [12:32:47] m_gol: assign that issue to me :) [12:32:53] longer term if we start using other transforms on the code (e.g., ES6 modules) it will be more bloaty in the -dist repo so i'm glad we're doing this step now [12:32:54] ESLint changed their release script because people were complaining about that [12:33:01] timmywil: ok :) [12:33:27] DaveMethvin: good point [12:33:40] ok, plenty to do, but I think discussions can continue in tickets. Anything else for the meeting? [12:33:45] yeah [12:33:51] small thing though [12:33:54] timmywil: one thing [12:34:01] fire away [12:34:06] m_gol: you first [12:34:09] were all milestones for 1.12/2.2 moved as needed? [12:34:14] or is there sth left to do here? [12:34:25] DaveMethvin took care of that [12:34:44] might need a second look [12:34:53] I *think* i got them all but another review is welcome! [12:34:58] DaveMethvin: how did you do it? [12:35:04] with the release script? [12:35:11] manually [12:35:26] yeah it was too messed up for me to do it manually with the reverts etc [12:35:30] hm, it seems release script would be more thorough [12:35:32] because I see some 3.0.0 issues/PRs that should have 1.12/2.2 IMO [12:35:54] m_gol: then they probably still need updating [12:35:58] if they're in 1.12/2.2 feel free to update [12:36:03] k, I'll see what I can find [12:36:11] okay, my turn [12:36:20] why do we have these [12:36:21] https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/dabd5ba96c05279b3ffb052db5b8d17f75996694/src/core/ready.js#L61-L62 [12:36:22] ? [12:36:57] to remove handlers that might have been added [12:37:10] they were added [12:37:17] but why do we want to remove them? [12:37:24] no longer needed [12:37:41] but they will no create a error situation [12:37:45] better to not leave around unecessary events [12:37:52] nor they take a lot of memory [12:38:01] still, I'd prefer the cleanup [12:38:12] i'm not sure how it would benefit us or the end-user [12:38:29] it could simplify the code though [12:38:37] and decrease the size [12:38:39] I think that's bikeshedding a bit. [12:38:50] i see two points for removal [12:38:55] size and simplification [12:39:00] which seems objective [12:39:07] it's not much of either [12:39:08] don't see the reasons for them staying though [12:39:18] i seem to recall someone making the case for adding, need to go back through the blame to find the discussion tho [12:39:59] i just wonder how it could help anyone? [12:40:23] https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/dbf4926e31390ceda57730c68d40f34536803114 [12:40:26] I'm not sure that's the right question. There's not a compelling enough reason not to do it. [12:40:34] markelog added it :) [12:40:48] no-no, i have made it consistent ) [12:40:56] haha ok [12:41:00] before, only one event was removed [12:41:34] yeah but you proposed removing both https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1135 [12:42:04] oh rwaldron did [12:42:04] i have presented the options ) [12:42:12] rwaldron choose it [12:42:18] i like the clean option myself [12:42:27] me too [12:42:34] yeah, it seems as i right thing to do [12:42:35] I think you're outvoted markelog [12:42:35] but why? [12:42:38] better not to stack memory leaks one each other [12:42:48] couldn't be a memory leak [12:42:48] small leaks tend to aggregate [12:42:49] sets a better precedent anyway [12:43:15] it's just good practice. You'd have to make a strong argument to leave them, not the other way around. [12:43:28] actually no one removing events [12:43:36] while page is still used [12:43:45] i.e. update [12:43:46] d [12:44:00] like you would add event for "click" [12:44:04] but rarely remove it [12:44:23] and that could be a memory leak [12:44:28] since action is not repeated [12:44:31] I think we can find other places in the code to simplify that are more important. [12:44:35] *couldn't [12:44:54] i just wonder why [12:45:02] just to keep things clean [12:45:30] okay-okay, gonna stop pressuring ) [12:45:38] I want lunch :) [12:45:58] i'm done! [12:46:11] i'll look at my two tickets so we can ship! [12:46:24] who will mute the channel? [12:46:30] need to check gibson pr [12:46:33] i will do it [12:46:38] thanks [12:46:46] see you in -dev! [12:46:47] but if someone could help [12:46:52] that would be great [12:46:56] I'll take a look too [12:47:04] ok-ok [12:47:10] laterz [12:47:13] see ya