Dev meeting 2017 07 11

Agenda

• 3.3 beta/release progress see tracker #6001 (@Bob)
• [RFC] Twig relationship/taxonomy/contentype functions & filters #6774
• Proposal: Add an extra minimal theme to core. (@Bob)
• Proposal: Require PR's to get approved/commented by other team members before merge (Exceptions can be made for small readme/changelog/typo fixes or urgent PR's when no one is around to approve/comment) (@SahAssar)

e.g.

• Status on drop bear invasion (@YourGitHubID)

Actionable Items

Outcomes

Log

19:32] 
gawainlynch ping @bob @carson @ross @sahassar

[19:32] 
bob
pong

[19:32] 
ross pong

[19:32] 
sahassar pong

[19:32] 
gawainlynch OK, let's get this happening

[19:32] 
#6001 and beta/RC

[19:32] 
boltissueball #6001 [open] [Tracker] Bolt 3.3 Release Blocking Issues https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/6001

[19:33] 
gawainlynch @carson: Do you have objections to #6805? It closes the second last blocker on this (edited)

[19:33] 
boltissueball #6805 [open] [3.3] Fixes for .bolt.yml / .bolt.php custom path handling https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6805

[19:33] 
bob
I think it’s GTG (edited)

[19:34] 
carson Haven’t had a chance to verify the logic, but at face value it looks fine

[19:34] 
gawainlynch Sorry to bug you on free time too mate

[19:34] 
WFM :+1:

[19:34] 
#6774

[19:34] 
boltissueball #6774 [open] [RFC] Twig relationship/taxonomy functions & filters https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/6774

[19:35] 
bob
I - personally - don’t really see the benefit..

[19:35] 
gawainlynch Further ideas and thoughts on the various approaches?

[19:35] 
Well, we do something now, or land people in hot water in v4 … with a rude surprise

[19:35] 
bob
I _do_ see a huge benefit of the other side of this RFC, namely a _new_ function you can plop any `Record` in, and it’ll give a nice overview of what’s in there.

[19:35] 
sahassar I think it will be fine if we get `|explain` (edited)

[19:35] 
bob
_That_ i would love

[19:36] 
I think it has to be `|splain` now.

[19:36] 
sahassar :smile:

[19:36] 
gawainlynch :rolleyes: :smile: (edited)

[19:37] 
OK … well, I'll happily go back onto the proverbial drawing board, but I am not the one that gets to explain it to end users

[19:37] 
There is no two ways about it … those objects are being decoupled

[19:38] 
ross I don't have objection to adding more helpers, but..

[19:38] 
the goal of the entities was that we would have standard getters for all fields including rels and taxonomy

[19:38] 
bob
I think if we’d get a `|splain` first, it’d be fairly easy..

[19:38] 
Could we get that in, in a 3.x version?

[19:39] 
gawainlynch Potentially … but we need time to code it, and the coders that can do it have a couple of years worth of work to do in the next 6 months already

[19:40] 
bob
Can you explain in one or two sentences what the benefit of decoupling them is?

[19:40] 
carson Doctrine ORM may let us keep the getters for relations.

[19:40] 
sahassar Well, for me `|splain` is a blocker for removing `record.related()` and friends

[19:40] 
ross we already have getters for relations and taxonomies

[19:40] 
gawainlynch sahassar: I am not pushing for merging of *that*  PR btw

[19:40] 
carson @bob  the idea is entities should not have services internally.

[19:40] 
gawainlynch ^

[19:40] 
ross {% for related in record.pages %} will iterate over related pages

[19:41] 
sahassar gawainlynch: Yeah, just making my thinking clear :slightly_smiling_face:

[19:41] 
gawainlynch Yeah, but it needs to go, Ross … there is so much that is holding us up :confused:

[19:41] 
bob
Who can help, with building the `|splain` filter?

[19:41] 
carson It doesn’t have to with Doctrine actually

[19:43] 
gawainlynch The things I GAF about on this, personally, are:
- Entities *without* services attached (as above)
- Serialisation
- Foreign keys

[19:44] 
All three are hurting badly, and there is a lot of coding around it

[19:44] 
carson Foreign keys? Objects publically should have no knowledge of that.

[19:44] 
gawainlynch Correct, but to build them … have a go :wink:

[19:44] 
carson With doctrine, you’ll need to merge() the object after unserializing it

[19:45] 
gawainlynch I know

[19:45] 
ross yes, there's a legacy service injected into Content... but they were designed to be plain php objects

[19:45] 
carson And it internally has services

[19:45] 
gawainlynch ross: Well understood, and I help you build at least one … not having a dig :wink:

[19:46] 
carson I know I’m flipping on my argument here.

[19:46] 
But an extra filter would just be more work that doctrine can do OOTB

[19:47] 
well maybe not OOTB, but with their abstractions

[19:47] 
gawainlynch Carson, agreed and as above not pushing for the changes in that PR, just pushing for change that works for all :slightly_smiling_face:

[19:47] 
ross I'd be up for evaluating what needs to be done to get it working properly... if it's not feasible in a reasonable timeframe then by all means we can workaround

[19:48] 
gawainlynch Yeah, please don't take my tone as upset either … just tired at the end of the day :slightly_smiling_face:

[19:49] 
OK … so shall we call this one a stalemate for this week?

[19:49] 
carson I don’t think so

[19:49] 
I think we should just drop it

[19:49] 
`|explain` is a different issue and should be addressed separately

[19:49] 
gawainlynch WFM … I am trying to get to a way forward though, as I keep saying … and ^ that

[19:50] 
carson Well the way forward is with Doctrine and it handles relations

[19:50] 
gawainlynch Yeah, but we need both buy-in and coders mate :slightly_smiling_face:

[19:50] 
bob
I _do_ think reaching agreement on what `explain` should do will be pretty easy.. And, perhaps once we have that, it’ll be easier to reach consensus on how to chip away at decoupling it.

[19:51] 
carson You said you were trying to get a way forward, not a coder.

[19:51] 
We don’t need to “decouple it” (edited)

[19:51] 
gawainlynch @bob Yeah, hence "call it a stalemate for the week" … i.e back to the drawing board until we have something closer to what gets consensus (edited)

[19:52] 
carson Idk what’s not decided on ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[19:52] 
gawainlynch
> gawainlynch
> Potentially … but we need time to code it, and the coders that can do it have a 
> couple of years worth of work to do in the next 6 months already
> Posted in #developmentJul 11th at 19:39

[19:53] 
Yes, I did highlight the need for "hands"

[19:53] 
carson So the question is not how but who. (edited)

[19:54] 
gawainlynch Not 100% sure either are clear

[19:54] 
bob
Ok, let’s move on for now.. I don’t think we’re going to figure this out today.

[19:54] 
gawainlynch Moving on, as we're not getting anywhere without code… Proposal: Add an extra minimal theme to core. (@bob)

[19:54] 
bob
Yes, as discussed last week with Svante and Gawain last week:

[19:55] 
carson :+1: also drop year from theme name

[19:55] 
bob
Apart from needing a `base-2017` anytime soonish, it’d also be nice to have an _extra_ minimal theme.

[19:55] 
gawainlynch Same, I've had a sneak peak at what Bob has ideas on, and I like

[19:55] 
bob
(I’d like to keep the year, though, but, different proposal)

[19:55] 
For right now, i’d just like to _add_ a theme.

[19:55] 
Something like this:

[19:56] 
carson So is this going to be “minimal-2017”?

[19:56] 
gawainlynch ^ what Bob said :+1: (edited)

[19:56] 
bob
https://github.com/bobdenotter/bolt-skeleton-theme

[19:56] 
It’s running on my Pi, here: http://bob.biz.tm/

[19:57] 
Soooo..

[19:57] 
thoughts?

[19:58] 
carson On the idea or the implementation?

[19:58] 
bob
either

[19:58] 
carson I think we are all for the idea.

[19:58] 
gawainlynch is staying quiet … 'cause UI and already in favour of the idea

[19:59] 
bob
I feel a “… ,but” coming on :wink:

[19:59] 
gawainlynch Not from me … It's UI :smile:

[19:59] 
sahassar :+1: for the idea, but I think they should be based on each other like we talked about last week

[19:59] 
carson I just meant I don’t have time to look at the code rn

[20:00] 
bob
@sahassar I started out with base-2016, and basically just stripped it down..

[20:00] 
gawainlynch `base-2016` is so last year though … /me hides

[20:00] 
bob
Replaced foundation for a “classless theme”, and removed a ton of cruft.

[20:01] 
If you put them side by side, they will still be _very_ similar.

[20:01] 
only, less bells&whistles, more bland


[20:02] 
If you remove that “sakura.css”, you’ll be left with a very plain, straight HTML skeleton

[20:03] 
@sahassar So, it’ll be quite easy to keep them in sync.. Just as i’m doing with `base-2106`, my WIP `base-2017`, `bolt-foundation-theme` and this one..

[20:03] 
This one just is, well, _less_.


[20:05] 
Also, it has no javascript, no build scripts/dependencies or any of that newfangled nonsense
  

[20:05] 
ross :+1: from me too...

[20:05] 
bob
Cool.

[20:05] 
ross I'd like to start from something like that, then I can add my own newfangled nonsense

[20:06] 
bob
heheh

[20:06] 
gawainlynch Yeah, that even has my attention too … now back to the BE corner I go :smile:

[20:06] 
bob
Ok, let’s get this in.. It’s tiny, and for people who have no need for it, it will be no bother..

[20:07] 
gawainlynch By 3.3-stable? (edited)

[20:07] 
ross gawainlynch on the serialize stuff, we can work on a concrete solution together if you want, if you can give me an example of what you need to do I can work on solutions within what we have

[20:07] 
bob
If it’s up to me, yes.. But I can also live with 3.4

[20:07] 
ross I really think it will be pretty doable, in the design of the storage system

[20:07] 
gawainlynch ross: Yeah totally in favour … again, after reading back sorry if that came across hostile :slightly_smiling_face:

[20:08] 
ross no it didn't...

[20:08] 
carson We could do something similar to doctrine. don’t serialize the services. after unserialization call merge() to return a different entity with the internal services restored

[20:09] 
gawainlynch Carson, get out of my brain :stuck_out_tongue:

[20:09] 
OK … last one

[20:09] 
Proposal: Require PR's to get approved/commented by other team members before merge (Exceptions can be made for small readme/changelog/typo fixes or urgent PR's when no one is around to approve/comment) (@sahassar)

[20:09] 
@sahassar: Want to run with that mate

[20:10] 
sahassar So, this one was crossed out, and isn't really on the agenda anymore, but ideally I'd like to see us not self-merge anything unless it is absolutely neccessary

[20:10] 
bob
(before we close, let’s not forget to decide on 3.3 or 3.4 for merging in the extra theme. we got kinda sidetracked. :wink: ) (edited)

[20:11] 
gawainlynch Oh sorry … I didn't F5 :facepalm:

[20:11] 
@bob: I was waiting for your response on my question about that, personally I have no objections to 3.3 … I need a few more hours on the last one I found

[20:12] 
ross 3.3


[20:12] 
bob
@gawainlynch Ok, i’ll prepare a PR for it.

[20:12] 
Back to Svante’s issue.

[20:13] 
I think everyone agrees that we have a process that works well, in most cases. There can always be an exceptional situation, and then the key is: Communicate what’s going on!

[20:13] 
gawainlynch ^

[20:13] 
bob
If we stick to that, we’ll be fine

[20:14] 
gawainlynch On process … and concern … any thoughts on https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners

[20:14] 
… and if desired, who wants what

[20:14] 
bob
I think GH does a good enough job already in _suggesting_ people for a review.

[20:15] 
gawainlynch I tend to agree

[20:15] 
bob
No need to fence that down, imho

[20:15] 
gawainlynch Oh, it doesn't fence it down, just "auto-adds" them for you

[20:15] 
bob
so, :-1: from me

[20:15] 
gawainlynch No worries :slightly_smiling_face: (edited)

[20:15] 
bob
Ok :slightly_smiling_face:

[20:16] 
gawainlynch It was just one of the things I was looking at to try to make this a happier place for all the team again :slightly_smiling_face:

[20:16] 
bob
Always good to take a look at GH improvements, so that’s fine.

[20:16] 
about that.. I noticed this the other day:

[20:17] 
https://github.com/bolt/bolt/blob/release/3.2/LICENSE.md

[20:17] 
It shows a bar with details about the license now


[20:17] 
gawainlynch Well #### me, I hadn't seen that :smile:

[20:18] 
OK, well anything anyone wants to raise?

[20:18] 
bob
I’m good.

[20:18] 
gawainlynch … 'cause someone needs to go to bed :wink:

[20:19] 
sahassar hands gawain a :sleeping_accommodation:

[20:19] 
bob
I’mma make a PR for the theme now

[20:19] 
gawainlynch Lovely … #meeting

[20:19] 
boltissueball </meeting> Failed parsing XML: 'hug' expected, No 'love' shown for bot. Program 'meeting' terminated.