Dev meeting 2016 12 06

Agenda

• How to make the "starter kit" work? (@Bob)
• What's the status of the Local Extensions replacement? (@Bob)
• 3.3 beta date? (@Bob)

e.g.

• Status on drop bear invasion (@YourGitHubID)

Actionable Items

• Delay beta as we agree the we don't agree with what we agreed with, well some do, some don't

Outcomes

• LE's inbound this week
• Bob has starter-kit under control

Log

[19:31]  bob sahassar mentioned he couldn’t make it.
[19:32]  gawainlynch OK, let's do here then as @carson & @ross are at least around here
[19:32]  bob Sure.
[19:33]  gawainlynch Local extensions … Ross is on it, advanced and close to PR … but 3 people
[19:33]  3.3-beta was going to be yesterday
[19:33]  @bob: What would you like to do going forward?
[19:34]  c.f. https://github.com/bolt/bolt/wiki/Dev-meeting-2016-11-29
[19:34]  bob Well, as soon as 3.3 beta is out, and there’s some docs on it, i’d like to see if I understand what it takes to make the new local extensions work
[19:34]  gawainlynch (today, apparently … me, dates)
[19:35]  bob It _will_ get some critical responses from people,
[19:35]  and how we handle that is vital.
[19:35]  gawainlynch 3.3-betaN wasn't going to wait on Ross … but we can
[19:35]  bob to handle that properly, i’d like to get a good grip on it, so that I know what we can tell people and how to make them at ease with the upcoming changes.
[19:35]  gawainlynch Yes, but that is the same crap … like that BS in IRC yesterday about extending PHP classes
[19:36]  bob Yes it is crap, but how we handle it is very important.
[19:36]  gawainlynch You have a good point :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:37]  bob I thought the guideline was that we won’t accept new features after beta, so I assumed Ross’s PR should land before that.
[19:37]  gawainlynch Just frustrates me … "How do I change core behaviour", "Here is a link…", "I am not a noob you MoFo!"
[19:37]  bob Doesn’t need to be finished and polished, but the ground work should be in
[19:37]  gawainlynch I know, and I really wanted to slap that guy as well.
[19:37]  gawainlynch @bob: Agreement was to get 3.3 rolling … Local extensions is/was/will always be an expert feature (edited)
[19:38]  bob Thing is, we _will_ get that, and I want to prepare myself to handle that as diplomatically as possible.
[19:38]  gawainlynch If a novice complains about local extensions, I'm putting them on /ignore
[19:38]  Same thing as on October 24th (edited)
[19:38]  bob Related reading: https://getpocket.com/a/read/1505279159
 getpocket.com
Pocket: Log In
When you find something you want to view later, put it in Pocket. 
[19:39]  october 24?
[19:40]  gawainlynch Yeah, "that day" at work, but the day that someone decided o unleash why "local extensions don't make my coffee in the morning", hence me ripping them out (edited)
[19:40]  They are for the 0.1%
[19:40]  bob gawainlynch They are, but that doesn’t matter.
[19:41]  People _will_ complain about it, and we _will_ handle that the best we can.
[19:41]  gawainlynch It does, they will read the change log that says "Local extensions removed"
[19:41]  If they are complaining, and not reading the CL, too bad
[19:41]  bob we are talking about the same thing, mate
[19:42]  gawainlynch If we break Twig, or something in the novice category … *everyone* should complain, and that is a good thing
[19:42]  bob Please read that article i’ve linked, later on.
[19:43]  gawainlynch I  can't, I don't have an account
[19:43]  But … that was the point that I raised and we all agreed on … beta needs to happen, it wont' wait on LEs
[19:43]  *we all agreed* on that
[19:43]  bob Oh, better link: https://medium.com/@thejameskyle/dear-javascript-7e14ffcae36c
 Medium
Dear JavaScript,
I wanted to talk to you about a problem in our community that we need to address.
Reading time
----------------
9 min read

(34KB)
Yesterday at 16:35
[19:43]  LE’s ?
[19:43]  carson WIll it wait on my RM replacement branch?
[19:43]  bob RM?
[19:43]  carson ResourceManager
[19:44]  bob @carson no.
[19:44]  carson No stress then.
[19:44]  gawainlynch @bob: Articled opens well, but in order to save all our time, short summary? (edited)
[19:44]  :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:44]  bob Short summary:
[19:45]  People WILL complain, because people refuse to read.
[19:45]  gawainlynch @carson: BTW how far off is it?
[19:45]  bob We know that, it sucks, it’s a fact of life.
[19:45]  we can however ease our pain by predicting it, and anticipating
[19:45]  gawainlynch @bob: FWIW I am 1,000,000% against adding local extensions back
[19:46]  carson Probably not far enough to warrent waiting. Maybe 60%. #6133 laid the ground work for it though. I do want that to go into 3.3
[19:46]  boltissueball #6133 [open] Gud DI https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6133
[19:46]  bob In concreto: We need to communicate ross’s work and explain how it is for the better. We need to do this at the very latest at the exact same time that local extensions are removed.
[19:46]  gawainlynch @carson: FWIW tests passing and that is GTG
[19:47]  @bob: Fair point … but we shouldn't delay beta because of it, we've had months (edited)
[19:47]  bob gawainlynch I am NOT saying we should put them back.. I am saying that we need Ross’s stuff to land, and I will make the transition go smoothly in terms of communication to the community.
[19:47]  carson Maybe we shouldn’t call them Local Extensions then. "Development Extensions”?
[19:47]  "Extensions in Development"
[19:48]  gawainlynch @bob: Same thing
[19:48]  bob Ross said his initial PR was close to land, so we should get that in.
[19:48]  @carson I like that name.
[19:48]  gawainlynch But that was the point of … meh … we change our minds, so be it
[19:49]  bob gawainlynch Yes, and after getting it explained I agree.
[19:49]  and that is what the crux of this thing is.
[19:49]  we rip something out people use. We have a good reason.
[19:49]  But, we need to communicate how people can continue their work.
[19:49]  Then all will be fine.
[19:50]  gawainlynch Yes, but we (IMHO) don't need that for beta1
[19:50]  ross yes, I should get the PR in soon, just need to find a few hours to finish up
[19:50]  gawainlynch OK, moot point then
[19:50]  bob IMHO we do, because of our rule that we don’t land features during beta.
[19:50]  ross when is beta pencilled in for?
[19:50]  bob yesterday :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:50]  gawainlynch @bob: That's why we tabled and agreed upon it last week
[19:51]  ross Application Level Extensions
[19:51]  gawainlynch Today, "yesterday" was my mistake (edited)
[19:51]  bob ok
[19:51]  regardless, I’d really like it in and then we can beta.
[19:51]  ross ok, well I'm probably gonna be a day or two late then depending on how my schedule pans out
[19:51]  gawainlynch @ross: You're one of the busy ones … take what time you need mate
[19:52]  Point being, it is a tiny, encased change, and *should not* prevent beta (edited)
[19:52]  bob ross Yeah, don’t rush it..  I personally would rather wait a few days more. But, that’s just my personal opinion
[19:53]  gawainlynch Nice fixup on #6133, Carson… passing now
[19:53]  boltissueball #6133 [open] Gud DI https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6133
[19:54]  gawainlynch While we're all here … objections to that one?
[19:54]  carson Thanks. Yeah travis derped 5.6, rerunning it now
[19:54]  This PR basically fixes all of our DI problems. So any service we want to extend or change we can after app constructor
[19:54]  bob No objections.
[19:55]  gawainlynch @carson: Thanks, was sitting here trying to think of that validation in less that 1,000,000 words
[19:56]  Last one … starter-kit
[19:56]  @bob: By your note, you needed help still?
[19:56]  (sorry, was looking at Travis getting all "testy")
[19:56]  bob I've got it working now, but i swear it cost me a few years off my life
[19:57]  gawainlynch Hahaha… Honestly mate, I seriously thought the same thing about the core PR
[19:57]  Composer and branches, that is another story
[19:57]  bob It has green lights now, so let's get it merged.
[19:58]  gawainlynch @bob #6128?
[19:58]  boltissueball #6128 [open] Add 'liveCheck' to our configuration checks. https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6128
[19:58]  bob yes.
[19:58]  The title of the PR doesn't really cover what it does anymore, but that's the one
[19:58]  gawainlynch OK, but if you don't mind … I am going to squash the commits as the merge down will hurt otherwise?
[19:59]  bob don't mind. :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:59]  gawainlynch (not change a single line of code)
[20:00]  Just for reference, when you merge git branches, it applies commits in a cascading fashion … but if there are changes in the target branch, that can get fun … if it is "one" change it is just, well, one patch to apply
[20:00]  The "add"/"remove"/"re-add" thing catches you out some times
[20:00]  bob Yeah, it's a single thing, so i'm fine with squashing
[20:01]  gawainlynch Hence why Fabien is so big on squashes
[20:01]  bob it just went back and forth a few times when we were arguing^H^H^H^Hdiscussing it.
[20:01]  gawainlynch Really don't want it to seem all O.C.D., it really really really just does make life safe & easy
[20:02]  bob i know
[20:02]  gawainlynch So much so … so very much so
[20:02]  @bob: We argued?
[20:02]  I know you were grumpy at Composer
[20:02]  bob well, if it were up to me personally, that PR would have landed _way_ earlier.
[20:02]  gawainlynch …and I am grumpy at the f'ing world right now
[20:02]  carson Doesn’t GitHub allow you to squash with the PR merge now?
[20:03]  gawainlynch @carson: turned off, and it skips the merge commit
[20:03]  carson Oh :disappointed:
[20:03]  BTW did you fast forward a branch to 3.3?
[20:03]  gawainlynch @bob: And you would have lost users and team members
[20:03]  bob if it would help we can kill that PR, and i can make a new one with just one commit.
[20:03]  gawainlynch @carson: No, I made a rare futz :confused:
[20:04]  @bob: No need
[20:04]  carson @gawainlynch le derp
[20:04]  bob @gawainlynch note the "personally" in my comment.
[20:04]  gawainlynch @carson, just forgot to push to `upstream` after a branch merge :confused:
[20:05]  carson And how did that result in commits directly on the branch? (edited)
[20:06]  gawainlynch Abort and had to pull --rebase
[20:06]  carson Ok a couple derps, no stress
[20:07]  gawainlynch Yeah
[20:07]  Let me live with the shame :confused:
[20:07]  carson #6134 is green. I’m doing one more thing on #6133 when I get back from lunch and then it will be GGTG
[20:07]  boltissueball #6134 [open] BC fix to ensure sandbox is disabled after exception is thrown https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6134
[20:07]  #6133 [open] Gud DI https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6133
[20:09]  gawainlynch @bob: like magic
[20:10]  bob I see one more line that needs to be removed, i think
[20:10]  https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6128/commits/02324a5935dd9188f3c02233d3a89520cac70f51#diff-9bf4409299c336b900b1911c813f7a97R6
[20:11]  gawainlynch
```git checkout feature/detect-debug-in-prod
git remote update
git reset --hard origin/feature/detect-debug-in-prod

[20:11] That will give you that checkout [20:11] bob On it. [20:12] gawainlynch If you want to be "pro", you can amend the commit and force push 🙂 [20:12] That doesn't really matter, as that isn't what is going to conflict, but a good one to learn if you're up to it [20:12] bob lemme try/ [20:12] carson Remote update? [20:13] gawainlynch 2.4(ish) thing [20:13] basically git fetch --all [20:13] carson How's it different..... Oh [20:13] gawainlynch Yeah, only recently found it … but a useful one as it is easy for people to remember [20:14] …and less -- [20:14] bob Tadaa! #6128 [20:14] boltissueball #6128 [open] Add 'liveCheck' to our configuration checks. https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6128 [20:15] gawainlynch For those following along … the above example is 'cause Bob has bolt/bolt as origin, our docs talk about that as upstream [20:15] Oh … Bob … it … perfect! [20:15] ross carson and anyone else who hasn't seen already, any objections to the syntax: https://gist.github.com/rossriley/aed47b9b72433e6320a39b5949f43434 since we're stuck with it for a few release cycles now [20:18] carson Looks fine to me. Implementation will conflict with my current PR. [20:18] gawainlynch @bob: Just so you know… https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6128/files#diff-738845ab074b9fb7bcdcf5fcdc0bca20R31 is going to throw an exception for people upgrading from before 3.2.3 and having configuration flashes (still in session) … (and with debug on) (edited) [20:18] ross ok cool, well let's get yours merged first and I'll rebase against 3.3 [20:19] carson Cool. The extensions service should be extended instead of invoked when adding those extensions is all [20:19] bob @gawainlynch it shouldn't, because the line above it.. Thought i monkey-tested it. [20:20] gawainlynch @bob: Difference between this is the error and {"config": "This is the error"} [20:21] To make is worse, the JSON test in Twig was the bug [20:21] …both Twig's and ours [20:22] So just warning you, the people you're trying to help are going to get hurt and there is nothing we can do [20:22] bob gawainlynch I'll do some more testing, but I was confident it handled both json and non-json notices. [20:22] gawainlynch OK, if that is the case … "Nothing to see here, Officer" 😄 [20:23] Just warning so we're not going "WTF?" [20:23] bob 🙂 [20:30] bob Travis these days.. [20:32] gawainlynch co-kicked in the … test [20:32] bob Yeah, I restarted it too. 😉 [20:32] gawainlynch You got one, I got the other … team work FTW [20:33] I wasn't waiting on it to go green btw … was too busy figuring out what was going on with Anke's site