Skip to content

Dev meeting 2016 01 05

Jump to bottom
Gawain Lynch edited this page Jan 5, 2016 · 7 revisions

Agenda

Log

<gawainlynch> ping Bopp carsonfull phillippoh rossriley SahAssar rixbeck slick0 [BoltIssueBall]… and the cast of Ben Hur
<rossriley> checking in
<gawainlynch> slick0: Just pinging you as there might be a point or two to keep your eye on
* gawainlynch hands rossriley a gender neutral beer
<Bopp> pong gawainlynch
<Bopp> THAT'S OFFENSIVE!
<rossriley> one is enjoying one’s beer
<gawainlynch> #karma Bopp 
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for Bopp is now 206
<carsonfull> On phone
<gawainlynch> phillippoh: Get off Slack!
<gawainlynch> …and here
<Bopp> gender neutral, bland beverage of non-offensiveness please!
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Fair point
<rossriley> sounds like budweiser
<SahAssar> Like #vodka?
* [BoltIssueBall] opens a bottle of Billionaire Vodka for SahAssar.  It's good to be the king after all!
<gawainlynch> OK… well given that we're waiting on phillippoh to reappear
<phillippoh> i am here :)
<phillippoh> sorry, macbook muted
<carsonfull> gawainlynch: save the spicy stuff for last :)
<Bopp> Looks like we traded one german for another tonight.. :-)
<phillippoh> xD
<gawainlynch> OK… So as we'd just like to take a moment to welcome you phillippoh 
<Bopp> Yes! I've asked Phillipp to join us tonight! 
<gawainlynch> Word on the street is you've been doing some awesome with a web site and have some plans for our social media strategy
<phillippoh> yes :)
<Bopp> Phillipp has been doing good work on boltthem.es, and general support and community engagement on slack an twiter. 
<carsonfull> #karma phillippoh 
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for phillippoh is now 1
<SahAssar> #karma phillippoh
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for phillippoh is now 2
<gawainlynch> #karma phillippoh phillippoh 
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for phillippoh is now 3
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for phillippoh is now 4
<Bopp> So, I'd like to see how we can expand on that, and formalize his participation in these areas. 
<phillippoh> wuhu i am collecting karma xD
<Bopp> Because - as you know - community building is very important, and it's something we can really use an extra pair of hands with. 
<gawainlynch> OH, well again, welcome and take a #beer
* [BoltIssueBall] $this->app['bartender']->setDrink('beer')->setTab('gawainlynch')->serveAll();
<phillippoh> and i would also give you my feets :)
<Bopp> Haha
<gawainlynch> OK… so next thing the upcoming extension changes
<gawainlynch> We're doing a bit of polishing… and I am spending my mornings on unit tests… but we should land this week
<gawainlynch> Which leads to a guide for people branching and tagging
<Bopp> Would be awesome! 
<gawainlynch> Namely: What to recommended as branch names for extension repositories, e.g.
<gawainlynch> bolt-2 — Bolt v2 extension code
<gawainlynch> master — Bolt-next extension code
<SahAssar> #4556 for the record
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #4556 [open] [PSA] Upcoming v3 extension breakage https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/4556  — assigned to SahAssar
<gawainlynch> This is specifically a recomendation on approach for extension author's repos
* gawainlynch sppels bad
<gawainlynch> *cough*
<phillippoh> sounds good
<Bopp> After it lands, i'm still happy to get a shitload of often-used extensions updated for Bolt 3.
<SahAssar> yep, there is going to be a lot of work with getting extensions adapted to v3
<gawainlynch> Thanks, Bopp… that'd be a great help… we should schedule a day/evening and do it together over beers and I can answer questions across the table to get you up to speed
<Bopp> *neutral non-offensive beverages
<gawainlynch> OK… so I'll run with… deary me :-D
<SahAssar> As soon as there is a guide/docs for it I can get start working on PR's for extensions that are kinda-sorat-active-enough to accept a PR
<gawainlynch> rossriley, carsonfull: any movement on documentation for your areas of change?
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: It's pretty easy, the hard part is getting people to branch first
<rossriley> I’ve got some on the go yes
<phillippoh> what will the required bolt version? ^3.0 ?
<gawainlynch> Yes
<phillippoh> ok
<phillippoh> i will have a look at themes if time comes
<gawainlynch> phillippoh: Bolt v2 extensions will not work (out of the box) with v3 soon
<phillippoh> i know
<Bopp> Themes will most likely be totally compatible, though.
<rossriley> on that note I was going to suggest that we hack the provides version to 2.9.9
<rossriley> while we are in alpha stage
<Bopp> (barring some deprecation notices) 
<SahAssar> rossriley: You mean for testing?
<rossriley> I’ve got most extensions working in 3.0 but you have to manually mess with composer.json and only install via command line
<phillippoh> themes have also be updated (at least the required bolt version) otherwise they cant be pulled in via the extension installer
<gawainlynch> rossriley: The branch that's landing soon, or master?
<Bopp> phillippoh: Fair point.. And it'll give us a change to review they're actually working properly still. 
<gawainlynch> ^
* Bopp pokes rossriley
<gawainlynch> The problem still to solve with versions and extensions… an installed extension that requires Bolt 2.x and doesn't have an available update for 3.x *will* block *all* Composer install/remove/update actions
<carsonfull> I've done no doc work so far
<carsonfull> And i don't understand the 2.9.9 thing...
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Yeah, but I think we know what's coming…
<Bopp> gawainlynch: That's inherent to how composer works, right? I assume the _practical_ solution for that is to get extensions updated. 
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Yes
<rossriley> ok, well at the moment most extensions require bolt <3.0
<gawainlynch> Exactly
<gawainlynch> So we'll put in a concerted and combined effort to help authors port
<rossriley> so if we change the advertised version on master to 2.9.9
<rossriley> then we can still install the extensions
<rossriley> at the moment on master if you go to /extend you don’t see any extensions
<carsonfull> They still won't be compatible though
<rossriley> well the idea is to make sure they are? if you can’t install then you can’t test
<SahAssar> rossriley: My question was meant as in do you mean that just for testing or as a bridge for extension compat on release?
<rossriley> well I’ve been doing a load of testing on new / porting 2.2.x to master and to even get running you need to hack the extensions installer
<gawainlynch> rossriley: For one, local extensions work *very* differently now, they are very viable for development
<rossriley> so on release I would envisage we’d done that worl
<rossriley> *work… but until then we can advertise 2.9.9
<carsonfull> Until when though? I don't think we see anything as broken with the installer...do we gawainlynch?
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Only what I mentioned with extensions that can't be upgraded blocking update/remove/install for everything else
<carsonfull> Oh I understand
<carsonfull> core is upgraded and then no UI to upgrade extensions
<gawainlynch> But if extensions are ^3.0 then 2.9.9 would not allow them
<gawainlynch> I am all ears for solutions… we all take different approaches on how we like to dev
<SahAssar> So to overlap a fake testing version and a real 3.0 they would need to be ^2.9?
<carsonfull> I think installer should show all extensions with all versions and just limit the installable ones to versions that are compatible
<gawainlynch> I was planning to see how we could override Composer's version tantrums if possible
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: What we show is to a large extent not relevant
<carsonfull> oh derp right nvm
<gawainlynch> …hiding is potentially a really bad idea
<carsonfull> Wasn't suggesting hiding..I thought we were already.
<gawainlynch> No, in the new branch, they just don't try to load
<carsonfull> But you mean composer update would block all package updates if one was not compatible
<gawainlynch> Yes
<rossriley> ok, well it’s not a biggie…. like I said you can hack it by writing your own composer.json, was just thinking of ease for other users
<carsonfull> "composer update package" for all packages would work
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Deserves some testing
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Not if one *can't* be updated
<carsonfull> gawainlynch: Yes
<carsonfull> I thought...
<gawainlynch> It fails for me about 10 times a day playing with this stuff… but I might be sober
<carsonfull> We should try it for an update with a compatible version 
<gawainlynch> Let's see if we agree on the new branch, if we do then land it and assess after than… I'll keep plugging at the API
<carsonfull> Cool cool
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Even on the CLI it fails
<carsonfull> Right
<gawainlynch> `composer update`
<Bopp> Don't mean to be rude, but let's work on this, and continue this topic next week?
<carsonfull> not that ^
<carsonfull> Yeah we can talk abou this offline
<gawainlynch> Not rude… already #bpfl'ed it :-P
* [BoltIssueBall] exclaims loudly: 'All bow for our Benevolent Princess for Life, the Monarch of Australia, strangler of drop bears and catcher of koalas: gawainlynch!'
<gawainlynch> Quick one… RFCs — Stay on forums, or resume GitHub use
<gawainlynch> (for core members)
<Bopp> I'm fine with either.. 
<carsonfull> For core stuff? I like GH
<gawainlynch> GH me too
<rossriley> if it’s a solid proposal GH
<SahAssar> I vote for GH. the forums is not the community for RFC's
<gawainlynch> Sold
<Bopp> for example: "Should we refactor X, in favor of Y" is best suited for Github.. 
<carsonfull> Easier to linkn back to when PR comes around
<gawainlynch> ^
<gawainlynch> OK… the big one…
<SahAssar> Bopp: It's a fine line though
<gawainlynch> No… not git branches
<gawainlynch> PHP minimum version
<gawainlynch> c.f. https://bolt.cm/newsitem/bolt-2-2-0-released
<gawainlynch> c.f. https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/4510#issuecomment-158612476
<gawainlynch> https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/4510
<[BoltIssueBall]> Bolt issue tracker available at https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues
<Bopp> but "[RFC] Hey guys, can you add a webshop to Bolt?" should be on the forum .
<gawainlynch> ^ agree
<carsonfull> ^ agree
<SahAssar> that's not really an rfc though :D
<Bopp> Let's make a rule that initial discussion show be on the forum.. 
<Bopp> and when an idea is accepted, and ready to be worked on, it'll move to github?
<carsonfull> "initial discussion"?
<carsonfull> for a topic or person?
<Bopp> For a topic. 
<carsonfull> I'd rather not....that's two places to keep track of them
<SahAssar> great. It's the cookie rule. Non-backed=forums, half-baked=RFC, fully-baked=PR
<carsonfull> then*
<Bopp> So, in short: An RFC should start on the forum, and move to GH when "accepted" 
<gawainlynch> Honestly… the inner community is pretty good at getting it down first go
<gawainlynch> We gravitate around Gh… notifications work… linking works
<Bopp> sure, but i assumed this is brought up mainly to keep down the noise on GH..
<gawainlynch> We did… but there was a lot of noise and it seems to have mostly been "How do I do X?"
<Bopp> so, if we urge non-core members to keep it to the forum, i don't see any harm in that. 
<gawainlynch> ^
<SahAssar> Bopp: yeah, but that assumes that we still get the same community/activity on the forums
<carsonfull> Works for me
<Bopp> SahAssar: That's fine with me. The forum is suited for that much better than GH
<rossriley> +1
<Bopp> IMHO, stuff on GH should be ACTIONABLE 
<Bopp> if it is not, to the forum you go
<carsonfull> Bopp: I was literally just typing that lol
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Agreed… someone can ^ that
<gawainlynch> lol
<Bopp> :-D
<gawainlynch> Moving on
<gawainlynch> So the advertised target version during almost all of 2015 of PHP for 2.3 was PHP 5.4+ and for Bolt 3 would be PHP 5.5.9+ and Symfony 3
<gawainlynch> 2.3 is M.I.A.
<gawainlynch> Feelings on PHP 5.5.9+ for v3?
* slick0 looks around, hoping no one notices him sneak in late
<gawainlynch> slick0: This is one it'd be good to hear from you on if you're around
<Bopp> I'm slightly in favor of biting the bullet and bumping 3.0 to PHP 5.5.9
<carsonfull> I don't think we should require Symfony 3.0 for Bolt 3.0. And thus not PHP 5.5 either. 
<slick0> wow! what timing!
<gawainlynch> #karma sleezd_ 
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for sleezd_ is now 1
<gawainlynch> #karma slick0 
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for slick0 is now 78
<slick0> lol
<gawainlynch> Damn tab key
<slick0> i could go either way
<carsonfull> I'm still really hesitant on this.....3.0 is supposed to be a BC release
<rossriley> what are the downsides to staying on Symfony 2.8 with PHP 5.4?
<Bopp> carsonfull: we can still do PHP 5.5.9, and stay on SF 2.8 for now. 
<carsonfull> Yes we could
<slick0> for a CA perspective, they're already 5.5+
<slick0> so it doesn't really matter there
<carsonfull> Would be a good incentive for GMO lol
<Bopp> Keep in mind that Bolt 2.2.x is _still_ supported, and will be for quite some time for people on PHP 5.3.x
<rossriley> gut feeling is since we are targeting a 4.0 release in 2016 too then we should do 3.0 = 5.4 and 4.0 = 5.5.9
<slick0> rossriley: i like that
<gawainlynch> rossriley: There are two motivating factors; 1) getting time to clear out deprecation for SF3; 2) Guzzle 6 & PSR 7
<slick0> however, haven't there already been changes such as using ::class?
<carsonfull> What about PSR 7?
<carsonfull> slick0: We are not doing that yet
<Bopp> PSR-7, SCHMSR-7.
<slick0> carsonfull: ah, ok… pardon me, then :)
<carsonfull> PSR7 doesn't require 5.5
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Guzzle 6 does 
<gawainlynch> (require PSR 7)
<carsonfull> We have PSR7 required already
<carsonfull> Filesystem uses it
<gawainlynch> I know
<gawainlynch> OK… fine… Guzzle 6
<carsonfull> If it's just for Guzzle 6....what does that buy us?
<gawainlynch> slick0: Yes, and ::class is a huge blocker on our deprecation work
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Well, we'd do 5 || 6
<gawainlynch> But a lot of libraries are moving to 5.5/5.6+ and we are kinda stuck in rock vs hard place on a few
<gawainlynch> Guzzle and PHPunit to name two
<carsonfull> My gut is the same as rossriley's....but I guess I could go either way. I don't ever want to be in a not moving forward position
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: But PHP 5.5 is *much* cleaner than 5.4 :-P
<gawainlynch> </jokes>
<slick0> my instinct is to say go for 5.5
<slick0> but i'm also open in general
<SahAssar> Do we have data on this? As in how many bolt sites are 5.5+?
<carsonfull> 5.5 has: ::class resolution, generators, and finally (try/catch)
<slick0> #karma SahAssar 
<Bopp> let's turn it around.. What would be a major reason to STAY on php 5.4 for now? 
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for SahAssar is now 102
<gawainlynch> http://seld.be/notes/php-versions-stats-2015-edition
<slick0> Bopp: so we can still require password compat! :P
<carsonfull> gawainlynch: Thanks for that link...I was looking for something like that
<carsonfull> From that link I'm fine with bumping
<SahAssar> Just to be clear: considering the poor upgrade rate of shared hosting this might lead to extended support for v2.2
<gawainlynch> What I would also say in that direction is that, generally, the people on shared hosts *can* access upgrades more often that it appears
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Sure, but we're in the early days of v7 too… that might have some impact in that space over 2016 at it works for their bottom lines too
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: What are Intendit sites running on?
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Two Kings (sorry not across that yet)
<SahAssar> gawainlynch: php7, all of them
<slick0> SahAssar: yea, but for as long as we plan to already support it (it's LTS)… i don't see that being a problem
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: GMO
<phillippoh> http://phpversions.info/shared-hosting/ some info on shared hostings
<carsonfull> gawainlynch: Is that a question?
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Yes mate
<carsonfull> for 5.5?
<gawainlynch> Just trying to get a tally of internal stakeholders
<carsonfull> We are on 5.4 right now
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Black Bear's clients?
<carsonfull> Pushing really hard to get us on 5.6 in the next few months...maybe even 7.0
<rossriley> all 5.6
<SahAssar> I'm all for us pushing forward, but I want the people stuck on shitty cheap hosting to have a way to use bolt anyway. Basically I want the docs to be more clear about this if we push the requirements.
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: We are (currently) planning on supporting 2.2.x until we declare another LTS… that covers 5.3.3+ and is pretty stable
<rossriley> just if 15%+ of users are still on 5.4 and we don’t have another pressing need to move beyond that, then I don’t see the need for us to be pioneering version pushes
<rossriley> especially if we’re doing another major release this year and we can advertise the roadmap for PHP version support in plenty of time
<gawainlynch> But we are going to push with v4 regardless
<SahAssar> gawainlynch: Yep, just wanted to put it out there :)
<Bopp> I'm tempted to agree with Ross.
<carsonfull> Do we have any stats on version usages?
<carsonfull> for bolt
* gawainlynch looks at Bopp 
<Bopp> It's just that I want to be able to bump things like guzzle to 6. 
<slick0> yes, but that number will drop, however… and there's still a very stable LTS with many backports for those who need it
<Bopp> carsonfull: We do.. I'll need to look them up again. 
<carsonfull> I think we should have those numbers before we make a decision
<Bopp> Agreed.. I'll look them up! 
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Easy access now, or should we call this week's discussion and get it next week?
<Bopp> not right now.. Will need to crunch some numbers
<gawainlynch> OK… In that case… #politically-correct-drink-time
<carsonfull> gawainlynch: Can you RFC it so we have a place to post info?
<slick0> 32.33 repeating, of course
* slick0 hides
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Was planning… great minds
<Bopp> :-D
<gawainlynch> </meeting>
Clone this wiki locally