Dev meeting 2016 05 31

Agenda

• Start of 3.1-dev
• 3.0 common issues

Actionable Items

• Clarify release schedule (Gawain)

Log

<gawainlynch> ping Bopp carsonfull gawainlynch phillipp rarilaDroid rixbeck rossriley SahAssar slick0 
<Bopp> pong
* phillipp (5b605d3d@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.91.96.93.61) has joined #boltcms
<phillipp> whoop
<gawainlynch> You missed the ping by about 10 seconds, phillipp :-)
<phillipp> oh
<phillipp> then you pinged too early xD
<phillipp> it was still 19:29 when i joined xD
<gawainlynch> I generally try about 30 seconds to the tick
<Bopp> heheh
<gawainlynch> People still in holiday mode by the looks
<phillipp> i wish i were
<rossriley> hello
<phillipp> i have to come back anyways, my grandma wants more stroppwafels xD
<phillipp> *stroopwafels
<gawainlynch> Evening rossriley :-)
<Bopp> hi rossriley
<gawainlynch> OK… well everyone's got logs… so
<Bopp> :-)
<gawainlynch> 3.0.x … what is people's feeling about how that's gone?
<Bopp> I think it went well. only minor hiccups
<phillipp> less stuff to fix than i expected
<Bopp> even the shift to "outside of webroot" went smoother than expected
<phillipp> just many people get the json error thingy when installing extensions but that might be their setup
<rossriley> extensions is probably the major thing we need to get some momentum on, other than that I think it’s been a much smoother process than the previous release
<gawainlynch> Yeah… it might be just perception… but the IRC/Slack seems busy enough with "interesting" questions
<Bopp> phillipp: That was fixed in 3.0.3 though
<phillipp> ah ok Bopp
<rarilaDroid> Peng
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Yeah… hoping to have the new extension site go live very soon
<Bopp> Yeah!
<phillipp> there are just some buggy bugs in the api endpoint for me :D
<gawainlynch> OK… Bopp, anything you want to raise?
<rossriley> sorry, I meant quite a few extensions not being 3.x compatible..
<rossriley> including two more of mine :-)
<Bopp> are we going to make a small roadmap, for the things (features) that we'll plan to land in 3.1? 
<phillipp> rossriley, thats because people are lazy
<Bopp> and setting dates for the window?
<gawainlynch> Window is open for 2 weeks was the last agreement
<Bopp> .. starting ..
<gawainlynch> 30/05
<Bopp> i still think you made a miscalucation on those dates
<gawainlynch> Which ones?
<Bopp> that list in that one place
<Bopp> that i cant find
* gawainlynch thinks miscalculation is my middle name
<Bopp> there was a list somewhere.. 
<phillipp> it never happened ... :D
<Bopp> and you said "6 weeks later", but the dat itself was 2 weeks later than the one before
<Bopp> the one outlining the planned releases
<phillipp> Bopp, that was an RFC on github i guess
<gawainlynch> #5239
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5239 [closed] [RFC] Tweaking the Release Schedule  https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5239 
<Bopp> yes
<Bopp> that schedule makes not much sense to me
<rossriley> so we just need to plus 2 weeks onto those?
<gawainlynch> If you mean the dates typed into that RFC… that was meant as a guide line
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Correct
<Bopp> but also the overlap
<Bopp> and two week increments
<Bopp> that'd mean we'd have 2.26 in a year
<gawainlynch> OK… they were all means as tight guidelines… the overlap is also deliberate
<Bopp> I'm fine with the short sprints, but the overlap will be chaos
<gawainlynch> The idea being that we go for a 6-8 week (average) release cycle
<Bopp> gawainlynch: but that "guideline" means a 0.1 release every TWO weeks. not "6 - 8" 
<gawainlynch> Not really… the over lap just give access to a feature branch … so if Ross is working on storage for 3.3 and the feature window is closed, rarilaDroid can still push Twig work in for the 3.4 branch
<Bopp> I'm totally fine with "6 to 8", but "2" will be mayhem
<SahAssar> pong
<Bopp> but, the overlap will mean a 0.1 release every two weeks.
<Bopp> Am i the only one who sees an issue with this? 
<gawainlynch> No… only if the over lap is taken as a hard rule … the whole thing was an attempt to layout some ideas to start working on
<Bopp> I don't understand if the idea is to outline "every 6 to 8 weeks", and then you give an example for a "two week" cycle
<gawainlynch> It is more that feature can (almost) always remain open
<phillipp> maybe gawainlynch wants to say that the 2 weeks are not strict but we should aim for as best as we can?
<Bopp> but, but, Bolt 3.26 will be insane in one year
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I'll do up a better one for you later … too tired right now
<Bopp> ok
<gawainlynch> There would be a 3.7.x at worst in a year
<Bopp> no
<Bopp> look at it! 
<gawainlynch> You are taking things too literally
<Bopp> 3.1: Release
<Bopp> 13 June 2016
<Bopp> n/a
<Bopp> 3.2: Release
<Bopp> 27 June 2016
<Bopp> n/a
<Bopp> that's two weeks late because of the overlaps.
<gawainlynch> Then read the  rest of the points in the RFC
<Bopp> Yes, i have
<Bopp> and if we _aim_ for the 14 day _per stage_ and have overlapping stages, we'll do a minor release every 14 day
<Bopp> <s
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Drop it mate… you're not seeing it, I am too tired today to explain it right now
<Bopp> show me tomorrow
<SahAssar> Also a question, for how long would we expect to support those versions?
* SahAssar just caught up
<gawainlynch> Yep… body that feels like someone dropped a safe on me right now
<Bopp> (not biting)
<SahAssar> Alright, backing off
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: LTS stays that way… but once 3.2 is out, 3.1 is no longer supported… etc
<Bopp> gawainlynch: tomorrow we'll break out a calendar, and you can show me the intent.. We'll fix the RFC up after
<gawainlynch> Thanks mate… intent is simply a 6-8 week cycle … and an almost always open branch for features
<gawainlynch> Any other points?
<phillipp> i just want to say that gawainlynch did awesome work on the new extension store :)
<Bopp> Are you making a roadmap for the issues people will work on for 3.1? 
<Bopp> True dat.
<gawainlynch> Thanks, phillipp :-)
<gawainlynch> Just building on what rossriley has laready done
<phillipp> and fixing my complaints :D
<Bopp> heheh
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I still haven't got much input from the team as to features… rossriley has some storage work inbound and you wanted to get on to clean up
<gawainlynch> CSS or something
<Bopp> yes, CSS stuff is longer term. 
<Bopp> couple months. 
<gawainlynch> But in lieu of people defining work goals
<Bopp> for 3.1 i want to do #5339 and stuff that follows that
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5339 [open] [RFC] Allow or disallow `<script>` in content.  https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5339 
<rossriley> gawainlynch: the only proper new feature I’ve got pencilled in is for sortable relations / selects
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Yeah, sounds like a plan … quiet small steps
<phillipp> rossriley: +1
<SahAssar> #karma rossriley
<rossriley> after that I’m going to concentrate on finishing up the unfinished storage stuff, and gradually replacing legacy
<[BoltIssueBall]> BoltKarma for rossriley is now 211
<Bopp> rossriley: it'd be good to have weird stuff like "template fields in repeaters" behave in a predictable way
<Bopp> even if that way is "No, don't use that" 
<Bopp> or "repeaters in template stuff" 
<rossriley> Bopp: yes, no probs I’ve spotted a few things that need to be tweaked a bit with repeaters too...
<Bopp> rossriley: cool
<Bopp> rossriley: Also, i'd love an option to be able to use "one of a few fields" in repeaters. 
<Bopp> rossriley: as in "add an image, onother image, a text field, and then another image" 
<phillipp> Bopp: like multiple repeater item types?
<Bopp> rather just "Pick one specific field from the available fields."
<Bopp> rossriley: does that make sense? 
<phillipp> ah ok, so no pre-defined groups, only normal single fields
<Bopp> yes, but the ones that are defined as possible repeater fields
<gawainlynch> Shall update more later — https://github.com/bolt/bolt/wiki/Bolt-3.x-Roadmap
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: We must be about due for Issue-geddon ?
<SahAssar> gawainlynch: Yep, I hope to :fire: 20-30 of them
<Bopp> Yes! 🔥
<gawainlynch> Kewl… Yell if you need help/backup
<rossriley> Bopp, phillipp it would be good if we could RFC that feature to get a better idea of implementation… at the moment it’s driven by the contenttypes.yml definition, 
<Bopp> rossriley: I will do that! 
<gawainlynch> 5…4…3…
<Bopp> 1.5
<Bopp> wednesday
<rossriley> <meeting <
<rossriley> messing up your validation
<Bopp> (1)^-1
<SahAssar> It'd be nice if that could just be a config option to complement #5307 so that the repeaters don't get needlessly complex
<gawainlynch> HAHAH!
<gawainlynch> You should have seen met twitch