[2009-10-26 14:34:23] -->| tr (n=chatzill@c-24-16-47-224.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 14:34:35] hey TR, thanks for joining [2009-10-26 14:36:08] |<-- DamZ has left freenode () [2009-10-26 14:36:45] =-= rszrama has changed the topic to ``Drupal 7 Ubercore Initiative | http://d7uc.org | First sprint planning meeting today at 7 PM GMT. Discussion will be logged and posted on the site after the fact.'' [2009-10-26 14:37:43] Hi Mike. [2009-10-26 14:38:25] tr: so, stephthegeek is into amateur robotics for school now ;) [2009-10-26 14:39:02] -->| Lynn_ (n=lynn@c-69-142-194-32.hsd1.pa.comcast.net) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 14:39:08] -->| duellj (n=duellj@c-24-21-68-115.hsd1.or.comcast.net) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 14:39:41] <--| duellj has left #d7uc [2009-10-26 14:40:01] cool! Tell her she can come to me for help if she needs it. [2009-10-26 14:40:27] Did i miss the sprint planning? I'm down with swine flu [2009-10-26 14:40:29] sure thing :) [2009-10-26 14:40:43] I mean down like physically [2009-10-26 14:40:46] Lynn_: sorry to hear it... and nope, we won't be kicking off for another 20 min. [2009-10-26 14:40:53] Cool [2009-10-26 14:41:32] Lynn_: what will happen then is anyone's guess... I'm hoping amye has some management magic up her sleeve [2009-10-26 14:41:42] rszrama: Shortly, shortly. [2009-10-26 14:41:43] Lynn is supposed to be jody btw but my irc name is fubar [2009-10-26 14:41:53] d'oh [2009-10-26 14:42:08] amye: you just can't sit there and giggle at me the whole time ;) [2009-10-26 14:42:10] rszrama: There's some stuff we can decide here, but not all of it. [2009-10-26 14:42:16] +1 [2009-10-26 14:42:25] rszrama: Whatever, I answered questions when I needed to. ;) [2009-10-26 14:42:26] hehe [2009-10-26 14:43:06] rszrama: My goal for this is to have a list of goals for the first sprint. Not even like 'tickets' yet. [2009-10-26 14:43:57] |<-- Lynn_ has left freenode ("Rooms • iPhone IRC Client • http://rooms.derflash.de") [2009-10-26 14:46:44] rszrama: That may just be crazytalk, though. [2009-10-26 14:47:45] amye: hehe, we'll see - I think this sprint will be useful as a learning experience and for further communication; group decisions over IRC are probably too difficult to achieve in a short period of time, but we can summarize conversation and take votes, etc.; getting help establishing and maintaining good feedback channels would be great, too [2009-10-26 14:49:05] amye: so, +1 for a goal of goals, and for gauging commitment and making sure there aren't any serious objections to the planned focuses as visible on "the whiteboard" here: http://d7uc.org/node/58 [2009-10-26 14:49:24] I like that a lot. [2009-10-26 14:50:57] -->| japerry (n=japerry@drupal.org/user/45640/view) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 14:54:01] rszrama: Do we want to discuss a direct port to D7 today? (We don't have to.) [2009-10-26 14:54:47] amye: there's been good discussion at http://d7uc.org/node/42 - I think it's worth at least summarizing, and in a call w/ mikejoconnor I realized we didn't _have_ to have a decision since D7 is still a few months out [2009-10-26 14:56:17] I think we'll have enough to talk about with just the sprint planning [2009-10-26 14:56:45] -->| Jody (n=Jody@c-68-80-217-159.hsd1.pa.comcast.net) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 14:57:09] D7 API freeze has happened already though, so it would be good to get a decision on the port soon. [2009-10-26 14:57:16] hmm, I can't remember... did we establish a time limit for these meetings? [2009-10-26 14:57:35] rszrama: Anything more than an hour seems crazy. [2009-10-26 14:57:35] no, I don't think we did [2009-10-26 14:57:52] Usually a sprint planning is timeboxed at 4 hours, but in our case, I think that is waaaay too long [2009-10-26 14:57:55] I like crazy. Let's go crazy. [2009-10-26 14:57:59] DamZ is 'locked in the Metro for security-related reasons and I vote that we start without him. [2009-10-26 14:58:03] lol [2009-10-26 14:58:13] DamZ sucks at traveling [2009-10-26 14:58:17] ;) [2009-10-26 14:58:17] seriously? [2009-10-26 14:58:33] if this keeps up, he's never going to leave his house [2009-10-26 14:58:36] I think it's like his special superpower or something. [2009-10-26 14:58:44] Mine used to be 'always missing the bus'. [2009-10-26 14:58:59] heh [2009-10-26 14:59:10] I told him it's not that long of a walk from the office to his house [2009-10-26 15:00:24] Ahem. Ryan, you want to kick off? [2009-10-26 15:00:39] sure [2009-10-26 15:00:47] So, we're getting started now. :) [2009-10-26 15:01:00] A few introductory words -> [2009-10-26 15:01:12] 1) We decided on a schedule for sprint planning and review meetings at our sprint in San Francisco. [2009-10-26 15:01:31] 2) I vote Amye manages them, and she does her best to keep them under an hour. [2009-10-26 15:01:48] 3) Today we're looking at our goals for the first Ubercore sprint, roughly the month of November. [2009-10-26 15:01:50] * amye agrees, ok. [2009-10-26 15:01:53] :) [2009-10-26 15:02:23] 4) Her goal is goals, and I concur. The primary targets for development as sketched out in the sprint are available on http://d7uc.org/node/58 [2009-10-26 15:03:14] 5) Other than that, we'll be looking for feedback on our communication so far and also on how to open and establish good feedback channels for everyone following along. [2009-10-26 15:03:17] any other thoughts? [2009-10-26 15:04:03] ideally we need to also estimate the goals, so we can begin to establish our velocity [2009-10-26 15:04:38] i.e. make our best guesses at how long tasks will take so we can measure our expectations vs. reality at the sprint review meeting? [2009-10-26 15:04:44] yep [2009-10-26 15:05:08] do we need to get a second on Mike's ideas? [2009-10-26 15:05:26] * IslandUsurper seconds [2009-10-26 15:05:29] (he is fake Irish, after all) [2009-10-26 15:05:34] :) [2009-10-26 15:05:36] alrighty, it stands [2009-10-26 15:06:18] Is there no other writeup for that whiteboard? (I was in that meeting and I can still barely read it.) [2009-10-26 15:06:26] hehe [2009-10-26 15:06:34] not yet... unfortunately [2009-10-26 15:06:36] zoom a bit [2009-10-26 15:06:43] you can click to view the full image [2009-10-26 15:06:51] amye: I intended to start that, but the swine got the best of me [2009-10-26 15:06:58] That's better. Ohsad! [2009-10-26 15:07:07] so instead I just laid in bed [2009-10-26 15:07:30] basically, port what we can, grok the Fields API, and develop our base product class; on d7uc.org, hash out the order model and community mgmt. [2009-10-26 15:07:43] (like feedback channels, site maintenance teams, doc editors, etc.) [2009-10-26 15:07:58] however from what I remember, our goal was to port CA, and TAPiR, re-factoring them for the new coding standards, and updating them as needed [2009-10-26 15:08:05] -->| robeano (n=robeano@c-67-183-109-234.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 15:08:25] rszrama: It's always nice to try and tackle the biggest, scariest problems first. Which ones would you say would be the biggest problem and should be our first priority? [2009-10-26 15:08:32] ah, I just remembered that "No Views" means that Views wasn't available on D7 then [2009-10-26 15:08:33] mikejoconnor: CA for the 2.0 direct port? [2009-10-26 15:08:45] fieldable products and the add to cart form will probably be the biggest hurdle [2009-10-26 15:09:00] sorry, calling it the "Add to Cart Field" so it's not just a form... could be a cart link after all [2009-10-26 15:09:09] |<-- thill has left freenode () [2009-10-26 15:09:19] http://d7uc.org/node/57 has where we gave priorities to the various core systems / entities [2009-10-26 15:09:20] japerry: ya, porting the current ca from uc2 to ubercore [2009-10-26 15:09:33] why aren't we using rules? [2009-10-26 15:09:39] because that's not a direct port [2009-10-26 15:09:50] nono, to ubercore [2009-10-26 15:10:01] I understand 2.0 D7 using CA [2009-10-26 15:10:05] k [2009-10-26 15:10:06] I'm down to help with porting CA, but I'm not sure exactly how to port it in isolation of everything else, how will we be able to look at it and see if it's doing anything? [2009-10-26 15:10:38] Jody: my thoughts exactly... we kind of have to have a product w/ conditions or something... [2009-10-26 15:11:02] japerry: our basic feeling is that although rules is a good system, rules isn't running on d7, and it's far more complex than ca [2009-10-26 15:11:17] I'd say either 1) a pluggable inference engine or 2) CA with compat. for Rules and/or core Actions [2009-10-26 15:11:39] * gregharvey likes 1) [2009-10-26 15:12:05] Jody: fortunately, I don't think a direct port of CA should be that difficult - it's one of the brighter pieces of Ubercart atm [2009-10-26 15:12:47] rules will be released and running on D7 day one its released -- but we're talking about a 3-4 month window (at best) between d7 coming out and ubercore coming out [2009-10-26 15:12:57] amye: is it better to discuss these things here or isolate these as pressure points and off-put discussion to d7uc.org? [2009-10-26 15:13:19] I'm not even sure I know what CA is/does.. and how it impacts things. [2009-10-26 15:13:35] I agree that CA needs to be ported for the 2.0 release on d7 though. too many variables if we try to change that now :-P [2009-10-26 15:13:56] japerry: I think the general idea is that we can have a basic inference engine working(ca) in a week. That's not to say we will never switch to rules, it's just saying that we can have a large piece of functionality working very soon [2009-10-26 15:14:24] I agree that it needs to be part of the conversation, but I'm not convinced that we're going to get to consensus here. We'll go until :25 on this, so that we can isolate problems and move on. [2009-10-26 15:14:29] -->| DamZ (n=damz@drupal.org/user/22211/view) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 15:14:44] amye: it's the core inference engine... it automates things like order workflow and provides the UI for things like setting up taxes, shipping quotes, etc. [2009-10-26 15:14:50] welcome DamZ, we started without you [2009-10-26 15:14:53] amye: (CA stands for Conditional Actions) [2009-10-26 15:15:11] hey everyone [2009-10-26 15:15:13] mikejoconnor: thanks ;) [2009-10-26 15:15:18] for the record: I was NOT the security issue [2009-10-26 15:15:19] DamZ: we're reviewing http://d7uc.org/sites/default/files/pictures/PA160308.JPG [2009-10-26 15:15:48] well I think we should ask ourselves two questions. 1. can we currently begin integrating with rules, and 2, is there any harm in porting ca, and evaluating rules when it's ready to be evaluated. [2009-10-26 15:16:02] my hunch is 1) no, and 2) no harm [2009-10-26 15:16:17] fago is never there when we need him :( [2009-10-26 15:16:22] (I should have pinged him) [2009-10-26 15:16:45] DamZ: agreed :-/ [2009-10-26 15:17:01] so maybe the 3rd question is: will an inference engine be valuable to us in the next 3 months [2009-10-26 15:17:02] my understanding (through the grapevine): rules 1.x is pretty much stable, but the 2.x branch has been open for a few months now [2009-10-26 15:17:04] -->| stephthelaptop (n=stephani@doecev-wlan2-148-42.AirBears.Berkeley.EDU) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 15:17:13] and there are some very intense refactoring going on there [2009-10-26 15:17:29] I think the 3rd answer is "maybe by the 3rd month" [2009-10-26 15:17:37] so I'm a little bit worried about the timeframe of that [2009-10-26 15:18:13] I think it makes sense to heavily rely on the inference engine [2009-10-26 15:18:30] that's apparently the direction even unrelated modules like OG are going [2009-10-26 15:18:32] (could someone pastebin some backscroll if possible?) [2009-10-26 15:18:48] * IslandUsurper is on it [2009-10-26 15:18:59] thx IslandUsurper. [2009-10-26 15:19:24] so, if we added an inference engine class through which we pulled triggers and such, could we not support in Ubercore 1.0 a plugin to that for CA and then get a Rules plugin when that code solidifies? [2009-10-26 15:19:52] I suppose that doesn't take full consideration of the Drupal hook model for defining stuff, tho... [2009-10-26 15:20:06] or maybe that doesn't matter :? [2009-10-26 15:20:42] rszrama: I tend to think we could do something like that with the hook system, but I also think that it's a little out of scope right now. [2009-10-26 15:20:48] rszrama: I don't believe so [2009-10-26 15:21:03] rszrama: every possible conditions and actions would need to be reimplemented [2009-10-26 15:21:15] rszrama: and the glue code for them [2009-10-26 15:21:28] DamZ: unless we standardized on CA's syntax and the Rules plugin massaged its data into the inference engine class's [2009-10-26 15:21:43] [INFO] 1 matches for ``ste'': [stephthelaptop, ] [2009-10-26 15:21:59] but then if you do that, why not make that a target for Ubercore 2.0 and get 1.0 out faster? [2009-10-26 15:22:03] stephthelaptop, not the best site to choose, but here you go: http://drupalbin.com/12062 [2009-10-26 15:22:13] japerry: what would you suggest right now? do you think we should just shelf the ca upgrade until the next sprint? [2009-10-26 15:22:22] thanks :) [2009-10-26 15:22:45] mikejoconnor: well, I'm a big believer in 2.0 for D7... so in that regard, if CA is an easy win, we should get it ported quick [2009-10-26 15:22:58] CA is easy enough [2009-10-26 15:23:03] I can do that in my bath [2009-10-26 15:23:14] (oups, I think I volunteered) [2009-10-26 15:23:15] Please don't, but cool. [2009-10-26 15:23:26] at least don't let the laptop fall in with you [2009-10-26 15:23:28] erm... we can video conference that? [2009-10-26 15:23:38] rszrama: sure ;) [2009-10-26 15:23:56] but I'm more concerned about the next 3 months (before Jan D7 release) and less concerned about ubercore at the moment. I think the landscape of d7 code we can use to build ubercore will be much different in 3 months [2009-10-26 15:23:57] Jody also offered help above, and I'm certainly available [2009-10-26 15:24:16] japerry: jan D7 release? you are dreaming ;) [2009-10-26 15:24:25] end of Jan [2009-10-26 15:24:25] ;-) [2009-10-26 15:24:38] japerry: let's say March [2009-10-26 15:24:40] thats what David and Chx think [2009-10-26 15:24:48] Jody: I'd be happy to work with you on the ca upgrade. I've been coding with ca a lot lately [2009-10-26 15:24:55] That definitely gives us a start, it sounds like CA is a good thing to upgrade, but also keeping in mine that we'll need to reevaluate Rules. [2009-10-26 15:25:05] I have to agree with japerry - I think a straight 2.0 port is essential, and I don't think that a port and a new Ubercore are mutally exclusive, because they can be done by separate groups. [2009-10-26 15:25:10] I don't think we need to touch rules until it comes to ubercore [2009-10-26 15:25:22] straight port of Ubercart 2.0 is completely out of question, IMO [2009-10-26 15:25:30] why is that? [2009-10-26 15:25:31] tr: agreed. [2009-10-26 15:25:33] DamZ: why? [2009-10-26 15:25:34] DamZ: Explain? [2009-10-26 15:25:53] I don't believe you realize the amount of work it is [2009-10-26 15:26:05] so, we're switching topics now? if so, I'd like to point everyone to http://d7uc.org/node/42 for starters [2009-10-26 15:26:10] I've ported some modules to D7, so I'm aware of many of the issues ... [2009-10-26 15:26:19] I'd rather talk about how to implement the rest of the sprint [2009-10-26 15:26:20] there are definitely pros listed, and then mostly me chiming in with the cons :P [2009-10-26 15:26:27] webchick has been talking about her ideal as feb/march for D7 [2009-10-26 15:26:47] you first have to port the module(s), then you have to maintain two different, but slightly similar branches [2009-10-26 15:27:10] rszrama: We're working on switching topics, but with small backtracking. (Small.) [2009-10-26 15:27:10] DamZ: I don't see ubercore and ubercart being similar at all, or at least I hope not [2009-10-26 15:27:29] japerry: you have seen the amount of work that has gone in porting Views [2009-10-26 15:27:36] DamZ: yup, I was there ;-) [2009-10-26 15:27:37] DamZ: Yes, and that speaks to the process of how Ubercart moves forward from the project management point of view [2009-10-26 15:27:39] I'm with TR on the "we can do this in separate groups" portion, however I'd like to try to focus on the next 30 days of ubercore [2009-10-26 15:27:42] japerry: and the size of the patch, and the fact that we are still at the begining [2009-10-26 15:27:52] DamZ: yup, there is a lot of work [2009-10-26 15:28:05] or schedule a irc meeting specifically for the 2.0 upgrade discussion [2009-10-26 15:28:14] we have a 10k lines patch or something [2009-10-26 15:28:35] porting every ubercart queries to the new database layer will be an insane amount of work [2009-10-26 15:28:38] It's a lot of work, granted, which is why both a port an Ubercore CANNOT be done by the same people. But that isn't an argument for abandoning a port ... [2009-10-26 15:28:56] especially because (1) there are ZERO unit tests, (2) some of those queries are *insane* [2009-10-26 15:29:18] Tests written for a port should be mostly applicable for Ubercore [2009-10-26 15:29:26] process tests for instance [2009-10-26 15:29:30] tr: well, if someone wants to do the port and maintain it, that's very fine by me [2009-10-26 15:29:42] but it should not take the time of any member of the ubercore team [2009-10-26 15:29:51] tr: that's mostly a pipe dream [2009-10-26 15:29:58] which is problematic [2009-10-26 15:30:00] tr: could be great, but I really doubt it [2009-10-26 15:30:43] real quick... [2009-10-26 15:30:46] DamZ: I look at ubercart port to d6, and it took wayyy to long. I don't think a totally rewritten ubercore+contrib modules + ui will be working well by a d7 release, much less SF. [2009-10-26 15:30:47] ok, quick question to try and guide our focus. Is anyone here against the idea of someone working on a strait port of 2.0? [2009-10-26 15:31:06] can we establish the reasons _for_ a port? [2009-10-26 15:31:07] japerry: well, then work with us in making that happen ;) [2009-10-26 15:31:25] rszrama: I'd rather not try to establish a reason right now, because that is not planning the sprint [2009-10-26 15:31:31] ok [2009-10-26 15:31:31] I think there are many in the community, (and yes, I'll volunteer myself) who would volunteer to help with a port, but can't do that until the process is changed (put things in CVS, for instance ...) [2009-10-26 15:31:32] mikejoconnor: I don't think anyone's -against- it, it's just a concern of time. [2009-10-26 15:31:33] agreed [2009-10-26 15:31:34] which is the focus of this meeting [2009-10-26 15:31:46] japerry: piping ressources away from Ubercore just because you believe it will not happen in a timely manner will not make Ubercore happen faster [2009-10-26 15:31:50] perhaps amye can direct our conversation atm? [2009-10-26 15:32:12] discussion about pros / cons? postponed decision? [2009-10-26 15:32:14] Probably best to take this into forums, I think. [2009-10-26 15:32:23] * IslandUsurper seconds [2009-10-26 15:32:24] Unless someone has strong disagreements? [2009-10-26 15:32:27] DamZ: no I just look at all the other projects that decided a drupal revision was a good reason to upgrade their module, and we have d6 all over again [2009-10-26 15:32:44] hmm, well, it's there... is there something beyond a forum thread we can do? i.e. outline pros / cons and actually get people taking part in the discussion to commit to action? [2009-10-26 15:32:45] thats why D7CX was started -- to get people to PORT their modules, not rebuild them from scratch. [2009-10-26 15:33:04] japerry: so one dissenting project won't kill things, right? ;P [2009-10-26 15:33:05] japerry: when that happens you get delays but end up with way better modules [2009-10-26 15:33:08] japerry: not really [2009-10-26 15:33:36] I think we're hearing a lot of the cons, but maybe not as much of the pros.. [2009-10-26 15:33:46] Forum discussion would be fine - I think however that this is a key decision which locks down a lot of others for Ubercore. For example, Rules v. CA is a much different discussion if absolutely nothing in UC works on D7 [2009-10-26 15:33:56] japerry: I think you are wrong about the motivations behind D7CX [2009-10-26 15:34:16] i definitely think japerry has good points to consider but since this is the ubercore sprint we should move on for now [2009-10-26 15:34:31] yah we can take this offline [2009-10-26 15:34:36] japerry: it's because everything is rethinked at each major release that Drupal still goes forward [2009-10-26 15:34:40] and talk about this in the forum, focus back on the sprint [2009-10-26 15:34:47] japerry: stop that, and it's the end of Drupal [2009-10-26 15:35:03] heh [2009-10-26 15:35:04] so: CA will be ported. Next is Product Fields [2009-10-26 15:35:07] japerry: D7CX is just about starting the process *earlier* so that modules are ready in a timely maner [2009-10-26 15:35:12] -->| duellj (n=duellj@c-24-21-68-115.hsd1.or.comcast.net) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 15:35:15] I'm very concerned about a whole Drupal 6 situation happening again and UC being a year behind the times and always playing catch up, rather than driving development of the next Drupal version. [2009-10-26 15:35:21] Let's schedule a time to talk about 2.0 upgrade through the Forums on uc.org, mmkay? [2009-10-26 15:35:22] I second japerry on the "lets continue the sprint" [2009-10-26 15:35:42] uc.org or d7uc.org? [2009-10-26 15:35:44] japerry: nobody is saying that all D7CX modules should be straight ports [2009-10-26 15:35:55] d7uc.org would be my vote [2009-10-26 15:35:55] http://d7uc.org/node/42 [2009-10-26 15:35:56] I'm all kinds of happy to come in and help 'moderate' that this week. Oops! d7uc.org, my bad. [2009-10-26 15:35:57] tr, uc.org, I'd say [2009-10-26 15:36:04] oh [2009-10-26 15:36:07] lol [2009-10-26 15:36:12] yah I guess that'd make sense actually.. because 2.0 is ubercart [2009-10-26 15:36:16] and d7uc is for ubercore [2009-10-26 15:36:17] :-P [2009-10-26 15:36:20] yeah [2009-10-26 15:36:22] United front, we totally can haz it. :P [2009-10-26 15:36:30] the only issue is we have some discussion already on d7uc [2009-10-26 15:36:41] port it! [2009-10-26 15:36:44] that can be worked around [2009-10-26 15:36:45] hehe [2009-10-26 15:36:47] so if we start another thread, that will be lost, but I'm ok with either [2009-10-26 15:36:54] ok. so next item on our list, [2009-10-26 15:36:56] -->| davidstrauss (n=davidstr@wikimedia/davidstrauss) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 15:37:02] so I'm clear on the action here... [2009-10-26 15:37:09] DamZ: suggested porting tapir, and making a module out of it [2009-10-26 15:37:26] sorry rszrama continue, I didn't mean to cut you off [2009-10-26 15:37:28] 1) New thread on uc.org summarizing the discussion on http://d7uc.org/node/42 and focusing explicitly on UC 7.x-2.x [2009-10-26 15:37:42] 2) Close comments on the thread on d7uc.org? [2009-10-26 15:37:59] rszrama: with a link to the new thread [2009-10-26 15:38:05] mikejoconnor, yes [2009-10-26 15:38:11] 3) Emphasize the resources we expect it to take [2009-10-26 15:38:22] and let people ante up? [2009-10-26 15:38:41] well, I suppose we still have to reach a consensus [2009-10-26 15:38:48] is that enough to move on, amye? [2009-10-26 15:38:48] sounds good [2009-10-26 15:38:51] I like. [2009-10-26 15:39:09] ok, so DamZ, you recommend porting Tapir [2009-10-26 15:39:17] ok, so what about http://drupal.org/project/tapir? is this even necessary if we have a Views dependency? [2009-10-26 15:39:25] I think we said yes at the sprint [2009-10-26 15:39:33] tapir is basically what theme_table() should be in the D7 rendering layer [2009-10-26 15:39:40] rszrama: we did say yes, but it's good to have the discussion [2009-10-26 15:40:03] (I wished I had time to push http://drupal.org/node/80855 in D7) [2009-10-26 15:40:07] :) [2009-10-26 15:40:08] DamZ: since you've already worked on a patch to d7, and with tapir, would you be willing to work on the port? [2009-10-26 15:40:26] tapir does have limitations that people have been bumping against... do we address those or simply port? [2009-10-26 15:40:35] oh, and it doesn't have a UI right now :P [2009-10-26 15:40:37] rszrama: yes, it's still necessary if we have a Views dependency [2009-10-26 15:40:44] no UI, please. [2009-10-26 15:40:56] who said a module should have an UI [2009-10-26 15:40:59] this is pure API [2009-10-26 15:41:09] Is Ubercore going to have a Views dependency? [2009-10-26 15:41:11] DamZ: reading my mind exactly [2009-10-26 15:41:21] rszrama: and yes, I would be for a rewrite, not a straight port [2009-10-26 15:41:22] tr: we had discussed a views dependency [2009-10-26 15:41:29] ubercore does not need a views dependency because ubercore should be an API [2009-10-26 15:41:34] tr: for things like admin/store/orders [2009-10-26 15:41:37] rszrama: it should not be that hard, based on the D7 patch [2009-10-26 15:41:59] Views is definitely a Ubercore dependency [2009-10-26 15:42:07] * davidstrauss was called in to comment here. [2009-10-26 15:42:21] davidstrauss: welcome ;) [2009-10-26 15:42:25] davidstrauss: hola :) [2009-10-26 15:42:30] davidstrauss: thanks for joining [2009-10-26 15:42:35] davidstrauss: want some ramen? ;) [2009-10-26 15:42:36] davidstrauss: 4 Kitchens == definitely my favorite t-shirt [2009-10-26 15:42:50] If the choice is between porting all of Ubercart to D7, including redundant modules, then I prefer the Ubercore option. [2009-10-26 15:42:52] davidstrauss: he apparently has a lot of ramen. [2009-10-26 15:42:53] rszrama: :-) [2009-10-26 15:42:54] davidstrauss: what they said smiley face [2009-10-26 15:43:19] amye: yes, for some strange reason [2009-10-26 15:43:35] well, i meant "between porting all of ubercard and ubercore" [2009-10-26 15:43:37] well, I mean. he does have 4 kitchens [2009-10-26 15:43:40] ubercart* [2009-10-26 15:43:54] japerry: The important measure is coffee pot count. [2009-10-26 15:44:01] ahh, yeah, for anyone who doesn't know, 4 Kitchens has definitely had to work against Ubercart's limitations in the past ;) [2009-10-26 15:44:06] japerry: That determines your peak ramen throughput. [2009-10-26 15:44:12] LOL ;) [2009-10-26 15:44:17] davidstrauss: <3 <3 <3 [2009-10-26 15:44:35] in an ocean of private jokes [2009-10-26 15:44:36] i had a dream recently it was called fork itchings [2009-10-26 15:44:56] to back up a little bit, tr: we did discuss a Views dependency, and japerry: we're still looking for this to ship as a coherent project - administration Views are low hanging, pluggable, overridable fruit ripe for pickin' [2009-10-26 15:45:02] hehe [2009-10-26 15:45:13] rszrama: oh, yes I agree totally on that [2009-10-26 15:45:16] as a coherent project [2009-10-26 15:45:17] so Tapir? [2009-10-26 15:45:22] lol [2009-10-26 15:45:23] Jody: Time to step away from the Drupal. [2009-10-26 15:45:28] Tapir? what's that? [2009-10-26 15:45:36] :P [2009-10-26 15:45:43] lol [2009-10-26 15:45:44] but specifically, when we talk about tapir vs views, I think views and theme functions should do what we need [2009-10-26 15:46:08] and the core core part, should need no dependency on views.. just wanted to check that was agreed upon [2009-10-26 15:46:12] If there's a Views dependencey, then why Tapir? Those things that we currently use Tapir for, like order history table, cart table, products table, will be better done with Views, no? [2009-10-26 15:46:13] "A tapir (pronounced /ˈteɪpər/ "taper", or /təˈpɪər/ "ta-pier") is a large browsing mammal, roughly pig-like in shape, with a short, prehensile snout." [2009-10-26 15:46:19] like there is ubercore and uberui or soemthing like that :-P [2009-10-26 15:46:19] Stop that. [2009-10-26 15:46:19] ok, if DamZ is going to work with that, he shouldn't be working on CA more than he already has (http://drupal.org/node/548144) [2009-10-26 15:46:40] cart table, really not a view [2009-10-26 15:46:44] mike and i can do ca then [2009-10-26 15:46:47] invoice, really not a view [2009-10-26 15:46:50] tr: I think we isolated things like the add to cart form, the cart table, products form on the order display [2009-10-26 15:47:03] order review, really not a view [2009-10-26 15:47:04] etc. [2009-10-26 15:47:05] tr: and I meant cart view form, not add to cart [2009-10-26 15:47:32] but why not make those table displays that cant use views just be theme functions that can overridden [2009-10-26 15:47:37] it would be crazy to think that all Ubercart tabular data will be Views [2009-10-26 15:47:41] Jody: yup thats right [2009-10-26 15:47:53] Jody: that's what Tapir is [2009-10-26 15:48:01] Jody: a way to properly override themed tables [2009-10-26 15:48:07] ok [2009-10-26 15:48:12] Jody: and tabular forms [2009-10-26 15:48:13] I think the primary reason is developer experience... Tapir would let you simply disable a column in a table instead of overriding the whole theme func, tweaking $header, etc. [2009-10-26 15:48:17] specifically by only overriding the part you care about [2009-10-26 15:48:20] DamZ: Sure, they're not "traditional" views, but they could be done with Views. Right now they're raw queries, which makes theming and extension difficult [2009-10-26 15:48:21] like adding columns / removing columns [2009-10-26 15:48:24] reordering columns [2009-10-26 15:48:25] etc. [2009-10-26 15:48:32] tr: there are not raw queries [2009-10-26 15:48:33] -->| Bojhan (n=Bojhan@mb30f36d0.tmodns.net) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 15:48:35] not at all [2009-10-26 15:48:37] hay [2009-10-26 15:48:40] hola [2009-10-26 15:48:42] all this is processed data [2009-10-26 15:48:42] yo [2009-10-26 15:48:43] hey Bojhan thanks for joining [2009-10-26 15:48:43] hihi [2009-10-26 15:48:46] rendered in a table [2009-10-26 15:48:53] Hey, sorry - couldn't get airport wifi to work. [2009-10-26 15:48:54] Bojhan: hey you [2009-10-26 15:48:56] IslandUsurper: can we get another backlog posted? you can set it to render as Text to avoid the syntax highlighting [2009-10-26 15:48:59] is it just like a drupal_alter on an array of header and rows? [2009-10-26 15:48:59] Bojhan: still in SF? [2009-10-26 15:49:02] DamZ: at SFO now [2009-10-26 15:49:03] DamZ: not my experience ... [2009-10-26 15:49:05] rszrama: The rule of thumb for dependencies is: (1) Try to keep the dependency optional and degrade functionality if it's missing. (2) If you can't elegantly degrade functionality, don't replicate substantial functionality in your own code in order to avoid a dependency. Just require it. [2009-10-26 15:49:20] davidstrauss: yep, we are in (2) here [2009-10-26 15:49:31] rszrama, sure [2009-10-26 15:49:36] -->| CKIDOW (n=CKIDOW@g229053016.adsl.alicedsl.de) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 15:49:44] Jody: it allows you to have a tabular #type element [2009-10-26 15:49:52] davidstrauss: what are you thinking in regard to Views, Tapir, etc. given the 2 options? [2009-10-26 15:49:55] Jody: that can be altered without breaking everything [2009-10-26 15:50:04] DamZ: I'd rather see a Views dependency that makes me grumble than unreliable code. [2009-10-26 15:50:07] backlog: http://pastebin.com/m1617db36 [2009-10-26 15:50:19] -->| gusaus (n=charlie@drupal.org/user/22137/view) has joined #d7uc [2009-10-26 15:50:23] davidstrauss: there is no discussion about Views [2009-10-26 15:50:24] :) [2009-10-26 15:50:25] rszrama: So, based on what DamZ's said about Tapir, I think you should port and include it. [2009-10-26 15:50:37] * rszrama nods. [2009-10-26 15:50:44] davidstrauss: we can ditch about 30% of the Ubercart code with Views ;) [2009-10-26 15:51:12] rszrama: If Tapir is superior to what core does, then by all means experiment and show off your superior system. [2009-10-26 15:51:12] bah, I wouldn't put it at more than 25% ;) [2009-10-26 15:51:31] rszrama: Core moves forward when contrib discovers and implements better ways of doing things. [2009-10-26 15:51:34] we decided against dependency on views bulk operations tho [2009-10-26 15:51:46] Jody: +1 [2009-10-26 15:51:58] davidstrauss: Tapir for D7 will basically be a refactored theme_table, based on the ideas of http://drupal.org/node/80855 [2009-10-26 15:52:04] Jody: and it'll make for a hella tight contrib mod ;) [2009-10-26 15:52:16] DamZ: All the more reason to move forward with it. [2009-10-26 15:52:30] Jody: we did? [2009-10-26 15:52:35] There's no better argument for inclusion of something in core than a great example of the API's usefulness. [2009-10-26 15:52:35] [INFO] 2 matches for ``Da'': [DamZ, davidstrauss] [2009-10-26 15:52:36] i think the tapir name is confusing [2009-10-26 15:52:44] Tables API? :D [2009-10-26 15:52:45] DamZ, yes, but we can still implement things for VBO [2009-10-26 15:52:59] So do we agree on including tapir in this sprint? [2009-10-26 15:53:06] rszrama: Let's avoid things that make it seem like a DB system [2009-10-26 15:53:16] rszrama: Personally, I think the naming is rather unimportant [2009-10-26 15:53:21] :D [2009-10-26 15:53:26] davidstrauss: DB system? [2009-10-26 15:53:26] IslandUsurper: in that case, you have degraded features when VBO is not available? [2009-10-26 15:53:30] tables API Ryanszarma [2009-10-26 15:53:33] rszrama: tables, databases, etc. [2009-10-26 15:53:40] rszrama: We can debating naming if/when it goes into core [2009-10-26 15:53:44] :D [2009-10-26 15:53:52] At least Tapir is unambiguous [2009-10-26 15:54:01] DamZ, right. Mostly, VBO lets us edit a lot of things at once. We should always be able to edit those things one at a time [2009-10-26 15:54:18] IslandUsurper: ok, good for me [2009-10-26 15:54:21] ok, so, mikejoconnor's question - is this good to target for this month? I think so, and I'm happy to turn http://drupal.org/project/tapir over to DamZ as long as he agrees to to take on CA work in a significant way ;) [2009-10-26 15:54:41] *not to*? [2009-10-26 15:54:43] Now, I strongly think CA should be abandoned in favor of Rules. [2009-10-26 15:54:59] lol [2009-10-26 15:55:03] DamZ: yeah, that :P [2009-10-26 15:55:05] davidstrauss: there is no debate here either, but we have a timing issue [2009-10-26 15:55:16] DamZ: OK. [2009-10-26 15:55:17] DamZ: trying not to ruin your life for the next month between work and contrib ;) [2009-10-26 15:55:21] DamZ: what about instead of porting CA we help out Fago? [2009-10-26 15:55:22] davidstrauss: because Rules is ongoing a very significant revamp [2009-10-26 15:55:26] davidstrauss: the general idea is we will port ca for now, and re-evaluate when rules is ready [2009-10-26 15:55:31] DamZ: understood [2009-10-26 15:55:48] japerry: open, I haven't spoken with him since DCParis [2009-10-26 15:55:50] mikejoconnor: That's reasonable, especially since CA should be reasonably easy to port to D7. [2009-10-26 15:55:51] |<-- duellj has left freenode () [2009-10-26 15:56:19] japerry: I think we want to start that discussion asap, anyway [2009-10-26 15:56:19] ok, so the next item on the list is products? [2009-10-26 15:56:33] DamZ: definitely agreed, we need to get rolling with rules [2009-10-26 15:56:39] and figure out where he actually is [2009-10-26 15:56:49] for products, see http://d7uc.org/node/49 for a summary of thinking so far [2009-10-26 15:56:49] and get all that figured out, THEN make a decision to use CA in ubercore [2009-10-26 15:56:50] I see fields api there as well, but I think that was simply evaluating how to use the fields api with products [2009-10-26 15:56:55] Fields are fieldable, correct? [2009-10-26 15:56:56] it's extremely exciting ;) [2009-10-26 15:56:58] yeah [2009-10-26 15:57:05] If we're talking re-architecture, then products need to be simple decorators on regular node types. [2009-10-26 15:57:16] want to make sure that feature actually got in [2009-10-26 15:57:21] davidstrauss: yeah, node = product display, not a product definition [2009-10-26 15:57:25] davidstrauss: don't jump to conclusions ;) [2009-10-26 15:57:33] davidstrauss: we spent two days on products already ;) [2009-10-26 15:57:42] DamZ: ok :-) [2009-10-26 15:57:50] davidstrauss: you should have joined us, we could have really used your input :) [2009-10-26 15:57:50] hmm, that forum thread summarizes it - lemme link in the appropriate pics [2009-10-26 15:58:08] davidstrauss: and the basic assumption is that products are first level objects [2009-10-26 15:58:08] too bad we didn't have a planner inviting people... where were you at, amye? ;) [2009-10-26 15:58:09] I suppose we still can, but maybe it would have been a lot less confusing [2009-10-26 15:58:09] davidstrauss: ie. not nodes [2009-10-26 15:58:29] rszrama: Running a DrupalCamp, so sue me. :) [2009-10-26 15:58:33] hmm the first thing that pops out to me is associating prices with products [2009-10-26 15:58:34]