Dev meeting 2016 10 25

Agenda

• Merging PRs … fear not (@GawainLynch)
• Switching #development to a private group in Slack (@GawainLynch)
• State of the RC. (@Bob)

e.g.

• Status on drop bear invasion (@YourGitHubID)

Actionable Items

• Carson & Ross to PR a better approach to extension dev/local extensions (3.3 blocker)

Outcomes

• 3.2-RC still has blockers but on track
• Slack #development to stay public, but attempts to behave better all around
• Rossriley will merge anything after a few beers

Log

<gawainlynch> ping Bopp carsonfull gawainlynch phillipp rarila rixbeck slick0 [BoltIssueBall] 
<slick0> pong
<Bopp> ploink
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I literally just tried to emoji your reply :-D
<Bopp> haha
<gawainlynch> Wrong media
<slick0> It's a sign we should switch 100% to Slack!
* slick0 hides
<gawainlynch> Tempted … But Rix & rarila are here
<gawainlynch> …and rarila is putting princess to bed :-)
<Bopp> Let's get this show on the road. ;-
<Bopp> ;-)
<gawainlynch> OK … I know everyone reads the notes, so lets get rolling
<gawainlynch> Snap
<rossriley> hello
<Bopp> hey there Ross
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Thanks mate, hoping you'd show
<gawainlynch> OK, quick couple first
<gawainlynch> Merging PRs … might be be, but I am feeling that people are a little apprehensive to merge core PRs … just want to note that Bopp and I haven't taken over this … please feel free to review and merge
<Bopp> Yes.. Basically, if you have a green button, you're allowed to push it. 
<Bopp> In moderation
<gawainlynch> I've been a (lot) grumpy lately, but for the most part there is not subversion going on … please don't feel like anything is removed 
<Bopp> ;-)
<rossriley> after a few beers I’ll merge anything
<gawainlynch> Bopp's question : State of the RC?
<gawainlynch> rossriley: We love you for it! :-)
<Bopp> I've found a few niggles, and a very small amount of finetuning i'd like to do. 
<Bopp> but so far, so good.. 
<Bopp> updated a handfull of sites as well. 
<Bopp> Am hoping others have similar experience. 
<rossriley> I’ve updated some smaller sites, with no issues for me
<gawainlynch> From my end, let's get it out when ready … it's pretty stable … but let's not 2.1 ;-)
<Bopp> There's one report i'm not too happy about.. 
<gawainlynch> Nic's?
<Bopp> Evert having issues still with underscores.. But he pasted me the troublesome contenttype, and I had no problems
<Bopp> Help me, which is Nic's? 
<gawainlynch> #5951 
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5951 [open] [BUG] Error not catched when saving content https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5951 
<Bopp> ah. 
<Bopp> Haven't had much time to look into that yet. 
<gawainlynch> But Ross followed up on the related one, so I think that is solved
<Bopp> "3.2.0 beta 5" <- so last week
<rossriley> it’s not always the case, If your db isn’t synced then you get a ‘Record could not be saved’ message
<gawainlynch> rossriley: That be the truth? </pirate voice>
<gawainlynch> Yeah, and Marcin's on beta2 or 3
<gawainlynch> Which I am pretty sure we've fixed
<gawainlynch> Bopp: #5948 in the can?
* gawainlynch waits for Ziggo to wake up
<Bopp> yes, we've improved the handling of that much
<Bopp> Shall we ask him to update to the RC to try again? 
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5948 [open] Link to License.md is broken in "About" on 3.2 https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5948 
<gawainlynch> Bopp: He has a go-live tomorrow
<Bopp> yes, lemme close 5948
<gawainlynch> So not willing to budge… just mentioning it for context
<Bopp> ok.
<gawainlynch> OK … before the crap shoot … Switching #development to a private group in Slack
<gawainlynch> …or splitting them
<carsonfull> I don't think splitting will work. It will be a general 1 and a general 2 channels
<Bopp> On the one hand, I think the "openness" is nice. 
<gawainlynch> e.g. #development (pubic) and #development-core (private)
<Bopp> hehehe, you said pubic. 
<gawainlynch> ¿qué?
<Bopp> I'm fine with either. Split it up, keep it together, i'll be in both. :-)
<carsonfull> I think openness is nice too. but there's random comments in there that should be in general. And crap fights are also public to everyone there
<gawainlynch> OK … just thought I'd raise it … moving on … carsonfull is probably right and it splits things
<Bopp> (nothing, just making a silly joke about a typo, disregard me) 
<carsonfull> I'm saying not to split it. 
<gawainlynch> …and +1 open
<Bopp> carsonfull: There's a point there. 
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Agreeing with you
<carsonfull> If it was up to me I would probably make it private
<gawainlynch> Oh
<Bopp> Let's be a little more strict on when general banter spills over into #development
<rossriley> yes, open, and let’s try and keep conversation more professional in there
<rossriley> if it’s open
<gawainlynch> Bopp: My problem is the shit fights
<carsonfull> But I'm also open of the people that would be in the channel so it's a one-sided perspective
<SahAssar> Well, let's try to not have as many shit fights in public then?
<carsonfull> s/open/one/
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Yeah, but hard conversations have to happen sometimes
<SahAssar> If it's a one-one one argument, a PM might be better.
<SahAssar> *one-on-one
<gawainlynch> …and as carsonfull raised to me in private, it doesn't reflect well 
<carsonfull> Yeah but then others don't get to give their opinions 
<carsonfull> WRT: PMs
<SahAssar> Right...
<gawainlynch> Yeah, one of the problems we've had since moving a lot to Slack is a lot happens in private
<gawainlynch> Then you end up with what Ross hit the other week where he was unaware of changes
<Bopp> I'm leaning towards "Open, and everybody should be a little more aware that it's actually public, and try a bit harder to remain civil to eachother" 
<SahAssar> I still think we need one public channel that is more focused on actual development. But if we have one private too, that could work.
<gawainlynch> Bopp: The last 24 hours, it wasn't (only) core members that we being assaulting 
<carsonfull> I don't think that will work
<gawainlynch> I wasn't joking before about my comment as to why Igor quit
<Bopp> gawainlynch: In that case we can tell them to be civil, or get a `/kick`
<carsonfull> Kick doesn't work unless it's private
<Bopp> carsonfull: It sends a message.
<carsonfull> Fair
<gawainlynch> They weren't being uncivil just ad hominem
<carsonfull> I don't think it helps though. esp between core members
<gawainlynch> …but that is a relefection of how the discussion unfolded 
<gawainlynch> (and my bad spelling)
<Bopp> so, what shall we do? Leave it like it is, and be more strict on the rules? 
<Bopp> Put it to a vote? 
<Bopp> Vote on putting it to a vote? :-)
<gawainlynch> Well not sure myself … I see *great* value in "open"
<carsonfull> same here
<gawainlynch> I can see the benefit of shit fights in private
<SahAssar> :+1: for leaving it and being more strict.
<Bopp> Or, mull it over, and put it on the agenda for next week? 
<gawainlynch> Yeah … let's leave it as a thought exercise for now
<rossriley> agree too
<Bopp> ok, but _also_ let's be a bit more strict. 
<gawainlynch> It would be hard in the case I mention, honestly … people were expressing frustration at the rhetoric thrown by a team member and nobody reading the technical conversation 
<gawainlynch> That's hard to moderate 
<gawainlynch> What they felt was justified
<gawainlynch> …just sucked to be on the receiving end
<Bopp> as in, make sure it stays on topic all the time, and address people when crossing the line
<Bopp> The last few hours were very civil on #development, I thought. 
<carsonfull> And maybe PM people that are being edgy?
<gawainlynch> Yeah, but the antagonist isn't even here right now to defend themselves … so it is also hard
<carsonfull> gawainlynch: You both were being edgy
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: I humbly disagree
<rossriley> we have a process for sorting disagreements out, with an RFCs / vote on GitHub so whenever things get away from civil discussion then either PM or move to github with a proper discussion
<gawainlynch> I was exmprssing technical points and being attacked on those for "not caring about group x"
<gawainlynch> Group X was specifically what I was trying to address
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Fair call
<carsonfull> gawainlynch: Yes, you are right. 
<carsonfull> And yeah I agree with @ross its hard to discus what needs to happen and the problems and such over chat. RFCs may be able to communicate it better
<gawainlynch> Anyway … raised … in people's minds … and I and others can try to work better on this
<gawainlynch> Now for the crap shoot … #5950
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5950 [closed] Remove local extension handling https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/5950 
<Bopp> I'll happily step forward as the bully to tell people to pipe down, btw. :-)
<gawainlynch> It is rare that this gets handled in this way
<gawainlynch> …and it was an exercise of position on my part … but not where I want to go right now
<gawainlynch> The core of the problem is that local extensions are abused beyond belief 
<Bopp> About that issue.. It's not how I liked how it went in, but in general I agree with the premise that it needs to be removed/replaced. 
<gawainlynch> rossriley: You're point was quite frankly gold!
<gawainlynch> rossriley & carsonfull: Both of you have (somewhat) similar approaches on what is a better approach … do either of you feel up to expanding
<rossriley> well, I know not a lot of people use methods 1 / 2 and I do a lot, so I’m happt to contribute tutorials for those...
<Bopp1> Oops, disconnect, sorry. 
<SahAssar> Can I just say that I hope that we don't handle large decisions like this in the future. If it was warranted or not in this case I do not know.
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: My opening statement
<gawainlynch> (s)
<carsonfull> Yeah I think extensions give a simplier interface for novices to add functionality. But the way they are added is one of the problems
<carsonfull> Writing a tut on how to do this with their installation should be made. This is possible now, but further PRs are coming to 3.3 that make this easier
<gawainlynch> From my end … there are incoming changes in Composer soon, that will break the composer-plugin API
<carsonfull> At that point, they can either extend/modify DI services directly or continue to use extensions
<gawainlynch> I was prepared to try and handle that, but as keeps coming up, the approach is wrong
<carsonfull> So it's basically a three fold solution. Add some more skeleton to composer-install repo, add docs for how to use, and some core changes to make the first point easier
<gawainlynch> Yeah, and to augment Carson's point … both Ross and I have a lot of work coming that contribute 
<carsonfull> I think all 3 of us do
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Yes, "augment" :-)
<Bopp1> My main concern is that we get it properly documented, for people to get it. 
<carsonfull> To bridge the gap from the solution/direction to the problem: The solution above solves asset syncing and autoloading classes
<gawainlynch> OK … but what we have is a BC break … and what Bopp1 just said on my behalf 
<carsonfull> Well we do have a BC break
<Bopp> About the BC break, that depends on how "broken" we consider it to be. 
<gawainlynch> Well, we've always documented is as an extension development end point
<gawainlynch> That is where the abuse starts
<gawainlynch> (abuse of concept) 
<carsonfull> I think the BC break it can be minimized with docs. But it still is a BC break. That's why I was against the PR
<gawainlynch> I know 
<Bopp> Not making light of it, but i'm sure we can make it clear it's a fix/change, and it doesn't require a bump to 4.0 before we do it
<Bopp> all comes down to communicating it properly, as carson mentioned
<gawainlynch> We bump to 4.0 for this, we're into 18 months without release
<rossriley> it’s only a BC break for development though itsn’t it?
<Bopp> gawainlynch: yes, no, that's what i'm saying.. we should _not_ bump to 4.0 for this
<rossriley> or are people using local extensions in production?
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Correct … except for abuse scenarios 
<carsonfull> Also extensions can be developed via vendor folder, after git repo is setup and everything
<carsonfull> No everyone is using local extensions in production
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Yeah, just highlighting the point
<Bopp> rossriley: I don't think Two Kings has a single bolt 3 site _without_ local extensions. 
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: That is one of the major complaints "I shouldn't have to learn git to use git"
<SahAssar> Intendit usually has one local ext per site.
<carsonfull> Right, that's why I want to move away from extensions for customizing Bolt. You don't need them
<gawainlynch> ^
<carsonfull> If you want to share your code, THEN that's where extensions come in
<gawainlynch> ^
<carsonfull> GMO customizes the crap out of Bolt and we don't use a single extension
<gawainlynch> rossriley: Yes, people do for whatever reason use them in prod. … I know one company ;-)
<gawainlynch> rossriley: But that is my problem to solve internally
<carsonfull> Can we table this? I want to RFC my direction. Maybe we can continue the convo there?
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: :+1:
<Bopp> yes, i think we're all in agreement, in broad terms. 
* gawainlynch couldn't help that one
<Bopp> let's figure out the details when there's something to discuss. 
<gawainlynch> OK … what we need to keep front-brain … is making this *easier* on the novice group … not harder
<Bopp> yup
<gawainlynch> Unfortunately they want to learn PHP without learning PHP
<gawainlynch> …or apparently much 
<carsonfull> ^ Yeah that's where I'm struggling
<carsonfull> I want to make the platform easy for devs, but if they aren't devs how far do we go to help them?
<Bopp> That is not a problem we will solve, though.. 
<Bopp> You should take a look on /r/wordpress for shits and giggles. 
<gawainlynch> Tell that to the afore mentioned antagonist 
<Bopp> so much disconnect there. 
<Bopp> "I've downloaded ssǝɹdpɹoʍ, now how do i pay someone $15 to build a better facebook?"
<carsonfull> ^ move to slack
<slick0> I'm very +1 for just exposing more of what already exists on the skeleton for this
<SahAssar> Look, if we can tell them what they need to learn it's a lot easier for people to swallow the pill (me included). The problem comes when it becomes like "just learn php".
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Continue, please
<carsonfull> Like are we ok just linking them to Twig docs? (I know Silex's docs suck)
<Bopp> We should avoid the word "just" by the way.. 
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Good point
<Bopp> "just do x" indicates you think they're dumb for not knowing this yet
<gawainlynch> But what I keep running into is that this is our fault
<Bopp> true, 
<Bopp> better process, better docs -> halfway there
<Bopp> "Just don't be a n00b" <- solution for everything. 
<gawainlynch> rossriley & carsonfull: Do you think I could kindly ask you both to layout some approaches in the upcoming RFC together?
<Bopp> kidding aside, let's make this better. 
<gawainlynch> We can than all review and comment 
<carsonfull> Yeah
<slick0> I don't think it's a "learn php" thing.. Many people who "know" php, only "know" "MVC", and think it's the be-all-end-all architecture
<SahAssar> I'm saying that if the measure of starting an extension is "learn php" (which usually implies "the parts that we use, and how we use them, and the framworks that we use, and the autoloading, and the templating language and so on") it's vague. If we can say that these are helpful places to start: "composer autoloading, silex basics, and twig basic extending" or something that makes it easier to scope what needs to be digested to be effective in basic ext
<slick0> They think a skeleton IS a framework
<SahAssar> Then it makes it much more approachable.
<gawainlynch> slick0: If only you knew how much of a trigger that acronym ws for me this week :-D
<gawainlynch> *was
<slick0> :)
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: So where you're going here is "sections" (my term) on each that give pointers to the right places?
<SahAssar> gawainlynch: yes, and preferrably a section at the top of each extension topic saying something like "In this part we will be touching on silex middleware and the symfony http kernel. you can read more about these here:"
<slick0> Basically, when people want a 'local extension', they want a spot to add their routes/controllers, and a place to register assets.. To you and I, Bolt is a Silex app, and it's just a matter of, well, adding these things.. For many others, they try to do things the 'Bolt' way, which is extensions.. And when you don't want it public.. local!
<slick0> So it's more education than anything, of course
<slick0> But we could very much guide people better
<gawainlynch> Yah, and what we keep hearing promised by countless people to produce :-/
<gawainlynch> But I have a pretty good indication of most people's schedule here (except the UK ninja, 'cause he's a ninja) and time … who has it? it is a wall we keep hitting
<gawainlynch> I agree that this would be more than awesome to have … but how do we get there?
<Bopp> Thing is, it's a two fold prong: 
<carsonfull> I guess delay releases until docs are done
<Bopp>  - one, understanding the subject matter in depth. 
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Yeah, but I don't want 2.3 either 
<carsonfull> We just need to move slower. 
<Bopp>  - Two, being able to place yourself in the position of someone who doesn't know these things yet
<gawainlynch> I am willing to manage 10 alpha branches if need be, btw … but still
<SahAssar> Some parts of this (replacing the local extensions in the docs) will be required before we can tag a 3.3, we have a "deadline" now. Some parts are definitely more in the future.
<carsonfull> Bob, yeah that's where I struggle. I know what I'm doing, but have a hard time seeing it from a novices perspective
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Yeah, and the carsonfull & rossriley RFC will cover a lot of that
<Bopp> BTW, i've made "document thumbnail aliases" a release blocker for 3.2.0
<Bopp> Let's think on how to do these things, perhaps work in pairs: one persons spits out the raw knowledge, the other rewrites it into something that makes sense to the target audience ? 
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: BTW just to fully cover your comment, I completely agreee
<gawainlynch> …with two 'e's only though
<carsonfull> Bopp: I like that idea
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I like it too
<Bopp> @sahassar oh, yes. we should absolutely not release 3.3 until this new extensions workflow has been documented. :-)
<gawainlynch> SahAssar: Are you approaching a point of any sanity that you could fill part of that yourself, or still stuck in endless hell?
<Bopp> ok, let's roll with that idea.. We'll try doing that once we have a new workflow
<carsonfull> Yall will have to give me a few hours to RFC. still have RL work to do
<SahAssar> gawainlynch: It's starting to ramp down. It all depends on how much our SEO guy changes his mind day-to-day.
<Bopp> it's for 3.3 so no _huge_ rush :-)
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: WFM … we have 8+ weeks … but let's not leave it that long
<carsonfull> Cool
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Can I ask one small favour of you too … Could you sometime in coming days have a private chat with Phillipp … I think he feels a bit (lot?) under attack right now
<Bopp> This week, i'll spend my scarce time on getting 3.2.0 top notch
<gawainlynch> days/next week
<Bopp> gawainlynch: Sure thing! will doe. 
<Bopp> (that comment was typed before i saw your question) 
<Bopp> I'll make some time for that, no problem.
<gawainlynch> Bopp: Yeah … I know more about your upcoming week that you do right now btw ;-)
<gawainlynch> We have a bit on ;-)
<gawainlynch> Lets not kill ourselves here
<gawainlynch> We do this for fun … let's aim to get back to that status quo 
<Bopp> Sure thing. 
<gawainlynch> OK … anything more to raise from anyone?
<Bopp> yeah, 
<Bopp> if anybody has any release blockers for the 3.2.0 stable, 
<Bopp> pleaaaase make an issue, and mark it as such. 
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I don't think we have enough cow bell
* gawainlynch hides
<slick0> I have yet to try the RC, but the betas have been goo dto me, thus far ;)
<Bopp> Last week i've twice heard someone say about a potential release blocker "I thought you were aware of this" 
* gawainlynch reminds slick0 about who's turn it is to /kick
<gawainlynch> Bopp: What blocker?
<Bopp> so, no, i'd rather we close 10 duplicates than miss one egg-on-face-bug. 
* slick0 reminds gawainlynch no body mentioned that templating engine recently
<gawainlynch> Mustache? :-P
<gawainlynch> Bopp: I am only partially getting your point
<Bopp> gawainlynch: #5954
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5954 [open] Error when creating relations to contenttypes without explicitly defined order. https://github.com/bolt/bolt/issues/5954 
<Bopp> Both evert and peterboorsma bumped into this. 
<Bopp> peter said "thought you knew.." 
<gawainlynch> #5955 fixed it? i.e. can close?
-[BoltIssueBall]/#boltcms- #5955 [closed] Fixed: Optional `order` in relationship shouldn't throw an exception. https://github.com/bolt/bolt/pull/5955 
<Bopp> The line of reasoning in their minds is: "This error is so prominent, they _must_ have seen it!"
<gawainlynch> …and yes, I know who merged the PR :-/
<Bopp> gawainlynch: Yes, i'll close. 
<carsonfull> Done? I need to grab lunch
<Bopp> done! 
<[BoltGitHubBot]> [bolt] bobdenotter closed issue #5954: Error when creating relations to contenttypes without explicitly defined order. https://git.io/vPhug
<gawainlynch> carsonfull: Go for it
<gawainlynch> Who's turn?
<carsonfull> </meeting>
<gawainlynch> Touché
<carsonfull> Oh I thought you meant close lol
<Bopp> <div class="close">
<gawainlynch> That's what I meant
<SahAssar> Or one could actually use a templating language to do that... {{-- */ \Bolt\Meeting::close(); /* --}}
<gawainlynch> slick0: He was "this" close
* SahAssar hides