Dev meeting 2016 04 19

Agenda

• Blockers
• 3.1-dev planning
• Talk over first week of new branching
• Templatefields (and repeaters) should NOT allow templateselect. #5143
• Remove serve from the git repo and add to docs. c.f. https://github.com/bolt/docs/pull/358
• Remove custom routing examples from routing.yml because they don't work like expected. @see #5211
• Update "Developing Bolt with PHPStorm" for composer installs?

Actionable Items

• Document templateselect in TemplateFields (and repeaters) @SahAssar
• Update "Developing Bolt with PHPStorm" for Composer installs (@CarsonF or @GawainLynch)

Log

<gawainlynch> ping Bopp carsonfull phillipp rarilaDroid rixbeck rossriley SahAssar slick0 
<Bopp> pong
<SahAssar> Hey! You are one minute early!
<phillipp> here
<gawainlynch> I always fire them out 30-45 second early
<carsonfull> here
<rossriley> early
<gawainlynch> Just gives people time to get moving
<SahAssar> I was just trying to be cheeky :)
<gawainlynch> Oh… slick0 give me ops! :-P
* json_borne has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
<gawainlynch> OK… quick and easy… any feedback on the branching change?
* SahAssar hides
<Bopp> I'm liking it
<SahAssar> yep, +1
<phillipp> after carson explained it to me, i am fine with that
<gawainlynch> ITEM: Remove serve from the git repo and add to docs. c.f. https://github.com/bolt/docs/pull/358
<Bopp> we should document the merging-down process though, so it doesn't all fall on Gawain
<carsonfull> Sure
<carsonfull> But sometimes it's not very straight forward
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Re merging, yes… just wanted to knock out the corner cases first
<gawainlynch> Give myself a week or two
<Bopp> gawainlynch: Sure thing. :-)
<Bopp> About `serve` -> I'm for removing and adding to docs. 
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: You comment connect to `serve` or meges?
<carsonfull> I want to just add a nut command
<phillipp> i never use the serve things, so i am also fine with removing it
<carsonfull> `bin/nut serve --port 8000
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: That would be awesome come to think if it
<SahAssar> +1 for carsonfull's solution
<phillipp> i never use the serve thingy, so i am also fine with removing it
<Bopp> oh, yes. 
<phillipp> damn, irc
<Bopp> Carson++
<gawainlynch> Next…
<gawainlynch> Templatefields (and repeaters) should NOT allow templateselect. #5143
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5143 [open] Templatefields (and repeaters) should NOT allow templateselect. https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5143 
<gawainlynch> Bob… want to lead on that one
<Bopp> I say "Yes, they should not allow them" 
<rossriley> why?
<Bopp> too complex, both in perceived functionality, as well as quirky code that behaves in weird ways
<rossriley> being that templateselect is merely a select field
<SahAssar> Counterpoint: templateselect is just a select field with the templates listed.
<SahAssar> Why not allow people to have that?
<Bopp> If you ask three people "What would this do?" you'll get three different answers. 
<gawainlynch> Documentation issue then?
<carsonfull> Is.. ^ that
<Bopp> Not in my opinion. 
<Bopp> It's just too weird.
<rossriley> I can see it being a key feature when we can implement repeatable blocks
<gawainlynch> rossriley: That would be 3.1+ though?
<SahAssar> myselectfield: {type: select, values: theme/templates, filter: *_partial.twig}
<SahAssar> How about that then?
<rossriley> it would yes,
<rossriley> SahAssar: it means making the select field a super-complex field
<gawainlynch> Is it "working" now?
<Bopp> I'm not going to block it, but IMHO it's just adding complexity where it's not needed. 
<Bopp> gawainlynch: For a random definition of "wokring" 
<rossriley> and ideally we want to go the other way.. we’ve already got issues where select can be a string and an array
* gawainlynch might be partially to blame for that part
<Bopp> We can just leave it as it is now, but I think it'll become a hassle to support. 
<gawainlynch> Personally… My thought is that if there is vision (and there is), then it is a +1, *but* if it isn't ready yet then we (should?) sideline it
<gawainlynch> rossriley & SahAssar?
<SahAssar> Currently it works as intended IMO. It just needs the docs to accompany it.
<gawainlynch> It has my support, but also Bopp's concern
<rossriley> to me it works as intended, by definition nothing inside repeater fields have any impact on the outer record
<rossriley> so I can’t imaging anyone would expect anything different
<rossriley> *imagine
<gawainlynch> OK then… who is up for the Action Item to document it better?
<SahAssar> I can do it
<SahAssar> (I hope)
<Bopp> rossriley: It's happened. i've seen people in here wondering what it would do, and if it would open portals into other dimensions. :-)
<phillipp> portals into a wordpress installation xD
* [BoltIssueBall] notes that if code was poetry, WordPress would have been written in Go…  It's more like "code is pooetry if you ask this bot"
<rossriley> maybe they expect too much from a CMS
<gawainlynch> phillipp: #5211
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5211 [open] [BUG?] Routing: Weird behavior on custom bindings https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5211 
<SahAssar> But seriously, if we just need to beef up the docs on it a bit to make everyone happy I'm game
<Bopp> SahAssar: Go for it! :-)
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Let's see what you produce
<gawainlynch> phillipp: can you take lead on 5211 please
<phillipp> sure
<carsonfull> #5211
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5211 [open] [BUG?] Routing: Weird behavior on custom bindings https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5211 
<jnvsor> Can I ask: I see extension dependancies on the list for 3.1. How exactly would you implement that?
<phillipp> ok, as noticed in the issue, it doesnt work like expected. its just like {whatever you want}/{slug}
<phillipp> i am for removing the examples from the routing.yml to not confuse people
<gawainlynch> jnvsor: We'll get back to that in a minute, if you don't mind :-)
<carsonfull> +1 for that
<Bopp> phillipp: i don't mind the current behavour
<jnvsor> No problem :)
<Bopp> phillipp: it _generates_ the correct URL
<phillipp> it generates the correct schema, but you can use whatever you want
<carsonfull> But not if you call Content.link
<SahAssar> Well, it _accepts_ the correct URL, but it does not generate it, right?
<Bopp> it just responds to others, just like `page/1` and `page/lorem-ipsum` 
<phillipp> when you have 3 categories and the record is in only 1. you can still use all 3
<Bopp> phillipp: yes, that's no problem
<carsonfull> Routing works fine. Just not generating the link
<phillipp> sure its a problem, i dont want to have my record available in categories where it doesnt belong to
<Bopp> phillipp: who cares? 
<phillipp> I
<Bopp> why?
<phillipp> then i dont need that category routing at all
<Bopp> then don't use it. :-)
<gawainlynch> Yes, but what if category routing is needed?
<phillipp> for me, the feature just dont work
<carsonfull> It's not to change functionality. Just to remove example
<Bopp> phillipp: for others it does. 
<carsonfull> For less WTFs
<SahAssar> The reason I'm against it staying is that it does act differently than the other examples. So "let's put it in the docs with a disclaimer"  has my vote
<Bopp> that reason didn't fly for removing the template selector from weird places, so it shouldn't here either. 
<phillipp> on the weekend i had the usecase where i have 3 chapters or groups and in each group there is a record with the same slug as the others. and only the group decides which record to use
<SahAssar> Bopp: but this isn't about removing functionality, it's about removing an example from a config.
<Bopp> phillipp: why / how would bolt magically know which route to use, if you have multiple routes that produce the same page? 
<carsonfull> Phillip you can do that. You were just doing it wrong
<Bopp> phillipp: if you order them differently, it picks the first match
<carsonfull> Bopp it already tries to lol
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: I think that was his point
<Bopp> and then bolt will _always_ pick that one. consistently
<phillipp> my usecase where "group1/bla" "group2/bla" "group3/bla". so 3 records with the slug "bla"
<carsonfull> Guys the problem was he was using "category" for the variable name instead of contenttypeslug
<Bopp> carsonfull: yeah, my point is: It works, it does exactly what you tell it to do.. If you get wrong results, be more specific in telling what to do
<Bopp> phillipp: sure, you can. 
<Bopp> phillipp: move it up in routing.yml, if needed.
<Bopp> #babbage
<SahAssar> but other routes generate correct links for use in templates, and taxonomy ones don't.
<phillipp> bopp, have you read the issue? it doesnt matter in which grouping it was
<Bopp> phillipp: yes, i have, and I think i'm right. 
<Bopp> i'll try again later. 
<phillipp> its just logically wrong to access records through groups or categories they dont belong to.
* RattyWork (~RattyWork@96.27.252.42) has left #boltcms
<carsonfull> The docs should note that you have to have "contenttypeslug" and "slug" for your variable names in the route 
* RattyWork (~RattyWork@96.27.252.42) has joined #boltcms
<[BoltGitHubBot]> [bolt] GawainLynch opened pull request #5227: Remove 'serve' shell script (release/3.0...hotfix/would-you-like-fries-with-that) https://git.io/vwsrJ
<Bopp> I'll try it, and if needed, i'll update the docs/comments
<gawainlynch> WFM
<Bopp> let's move on :-)
<gawainlynch> ITEM: someone added — Update "Developing Bolt with PHPStorm" for composer installs?
<gawainlynch> Step up
<Bopp> me! 
<gawainlynch> (quickly)
<gawainlynch> haha… sorry Bopp 
<Bopp> if you're using a composer install, like the current beta 3. 
<gawainlynch> TBH, you should be dev-ing in a git install IMHO
<Bopp> the dump.php script doesn't work, and PHPstorm is less effective in finding stuff than sublime is
<Bopp> gawainlynch: Even if you're working on an extension? 
<Bopp> that seems like extra hassle. 
<gawainlynch> Bopp: The script is pretty simple to read/update… and yeah, I bind mount everything, so wrong person to ask 
<Bopp> IMHO the dump.php script should come in two variants, for those two usecases
<gawainlynch> Lets update it… Sounds like a plan
<gawainlynch> Moving on… and closing up
<Bopp> +1
<gawainlynch> 3.1-dev planning
<gawainlynch> Speak up those who want features
<gawainlynch> * Speak up those who want to add features
<SahAssar> I'd like to get the config changes in
<Bopp> I'm going to start work on refactoring the backend, but will not be for 3.1
<phillipp> oh, i was about to get out my wishlist xD
<rossriley> what’s the timings going to be?
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Config… oh right
<carsonfull> config changes for me
<Bopp> Also: I recall us discussing before that 3.1 should be a "bugfix only release" 
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: diffent ones
<carsonfull> and content and taxomy types and services separate from config
<Bopp> is that idea off the table?
<gawainlynch> rossriley: My wish is that we open feature now, it closes 2-4 weeks after 3.0.0 release, and we go for beta/release of 3.1
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Not at all, but people are going to feature
<rossriley> For me the immediate list is: 1-Sortable Relations, 2-Sortable Selects, 3-Key-based relations / taxonomy, 4-Perfecting the replacement for getContent
<carsonfull> That's not enough time for config
<gawainlynch> …and the idea was more about focusing on testing/bugfixing
<Bopp> and, to be a party-pooper: I'd like for us to not open 3.1 for new stuff until 3.0.0 is tagged.
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: I know
* json_borne (~json_born@ip-185-82-195-116.fiber.nl) has joined #boltcms
<carsonfull> Unless what bob said is true
<rossriley> but, I’m of the opinion that we should just have a release schedule and see what can get completed in time
<Bopp> We need to get 3.0 out of the door!
<gawainlynch> Bopp: No be a reverse party pooper… but as per yesterday, I disagree
<gawainlynch> rossriley: My thoughts
<Bopp> i know. we disagree. :-)
<carsonfull> Can it be 6-8 weeks?
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I am thinking this is "soft" until release… and TBH, I trust us all to get it done
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Potentially… but you won't finish in that time
<gawainlynch> What I would like to do is have a moving feature branch so that doens't matter
<carsonfull> I
<carsonfull> I'm fine with that
<Bopp> gawainlynch: I again respectfully disagree. 
<gawainlynch> But increase the turn over of minor releases, while not taking our eye off of release
<Bopp> open feature branch will never get us to a release
<carsonfull> Bopp: What's your concern?
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I know, but it hasn't worked, and it is not giving people a chance… it makes assumption about behaviour that we don't have data on
<carsonfull> It allows other people to add features while core team wraps up beta
<gawainlynch> ^
<Bopp> We can try it, but i'm skeptic.
<gawainlynch> For example, we've prevented rarila from doing pretty much anything for over 6 months now
<phillipp> lol
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I know, I respect that, and we have both had to manage impossible people :-)
<gawainlynch> But give the team time to shine :-)
<carsonfull> The other thing that's changing is our branching process
<Bopp> Sure. 
<rarilaDroid> gawainlynch: can we continue another 6 months? ;-)
<carsonfull> It should be easier to manage multiple branches now
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: ^
<gawainlynch> rarilaDroid: Do some coding will you ;-)
<gawainlynch> Bopp: All I am (personally) asking is that we give the team, and contributors, agency and see how we can support and build that
<gawainlynch> We are growing as a project, and year+ long dev cycles will kill that
<rarilaDroid> gawainlynch: for that js stuff doesn't care anyone anyway ;-)
<gawainlynch> rarilaDroid: Yeah, but no, but
<Bopp> like i said, let's try, but I'm going to remain skeptic until we've released a 3.1 in a timely fashion after 3.0
<gawainlynch> +1
<gawainlynch> OK… we've gone over 30… anything to raise?
<Bopp> yes, 
<gawainlynch> Fire!
<Bopp> open issues for 3.0! 
<Bopp> https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Blocking+release%22
<Bopp> Is everything assigned to anybody? 
<Bopp> Can I handle one of those, without breaking shit? 
<gawainlynch> #4095 is in Carson's hands and progressing
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #4095 [open] [Feature] Thumbnails/Uploads/FileManager with remote filesystems https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/4095  — assigned to CarsonF
<rarilaDroid> #5218 is not blocking anymore
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5218 [open] Bad default values for list types https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5218 
<gawainlynch> #5117 is down to Ross and I duelling it out for who takes it
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5117 [open] Database entities won't hydrate if columns use captials https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5117 
<gawainlynch> #5161 I am working on
<SahAssar> #4503 is still looking a bit empty
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #4503 [open] [Tracker] Documentation updates https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/4503 
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5161 [open] Create Project from single composer.json throws errors https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5161 
<rossriley> gawainlynch: I’ll chat with you after the meeting about that
<gawainlynch> #5199 rossriley and I have to talk over too
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5199 [open] [Upgrade] Fatal error in dashboard from getLatest() https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5199 
<gawainlynch> …and that one that rarilaDroid linked… same
<Bopp> Ok, seems like all are in progress one way or the other. 
<carsonfull> Yep!
<gawainlynch> Exactly… sorry for not giving you vision on that, Bopp, had it sorted in my head :-/
<gawainlynch> OK… past that?
<rossriley> release date?
<Bopp> may 1. 
<rarilaDroid> May 8th, mother day :-)
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Sunday?
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Close blockers first?
<Bopp> may 2. 
<rarilaDroid> Mther edition
<Bopp> ;-)
<phillipp> we should hype it for 8 months first
<rarilaDroid> the mother of all cms
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Would you like the honours again?
<Bopp> I'd _love_ to get it out before I have my short week off. 
<SahAssar> </meeting
<Bopp> (which is may 4 - may 8)
<SahAssar> >
<SahAssar> Ouch, malformed SGML...
<gawainlynch> INVALID MEETINGML
<Bopp> :-)
<Bopp> #pony
* [BoltIssueBall] says "ZA̡͊͠͝LGΌ ISͮ̂҉̯͈͕̹̘̱ TO͇̹̺ͅƝ̴ȳ̳ TH̘Ë͖́̉ ͠P̯͍̭O̚​N̐Y̡ H̸̡̪̯ͨ͊̽̅̾̎Ȩ̬̩̾͛ͪ̈́̀́͘ ̶̧̨̱̹̭̯ͧ̾ͬC̷̙̲̝͖ͭ̏ͥͮ͟Oͮ͏̮̪̝͍M̲̖͊̒ͪͩͬ̚̚͜Ȇ̴̟̟͙̞ͩ͌͝S̨̥̫͎̭ͯ̿̔̀ͅ"
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Me too, but let's get this week out of the way and close some stuff
<Bopp> gawainlynch: sure thing! 
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Still waiting on valid ML
<SahAssar> </meeting> :D