fluid-work IRC Logs-2013-05-02

[10:04:09 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> Justin_o: KING please forgive me! I accidentally pushed Boz's pull request

[10:04:23 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> it's almost fine, but the progress demo is broken by the changes he made

[10:04:34 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> do you want me to back out the push? or just ask him to fix the demo?

[10:04:41 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> or, I suppose, I could fix the demo too

[10:04:42 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: is that the only issue?

[10:04:49 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> yes, that's the only issue

[10:05:05 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> all the tests pass on FF, Chrome and Safari

[10:05:08 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: just fix the demo then..

[10:05:16 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> thanks - sorry about that

[10:05:25 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> i think that will be the most straight forward approach.. that's okay.. it happens

[10:05:31 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> (smile)

[10:20:38 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled, anastasiac: currently the build site itself uses the built version of infusion to make use of the FSS. I think it would be good to use a static version of the FSS instead. That way the site won't look broken when builds fail. What do you think?

[10:20:55 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> Note that the demos and etc. will all still use the built version.

[10:21:03 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> this is just for the index.html page that holds the links

[10:21:10 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> that makes sense to me, Justin_o

[10:21:27 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> Justin_o: it only uses FSS?

[10:21:44 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: yes… there's no js on the page

[10:21:59 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> except for the google analytics stuff

[10:22:11 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I guess I wouldn't include all of infusion then - probably just FSS

[10:22:15 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> do you think that makes sense?

[10:22:35 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: yes.. exactly.. i'll do a custom build of just FSS for it

[10:23:16 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> that makes sense to me Justin_o. I'd also put in a read me somewhere to track the revision of FSS and the build flags used

[10:24:07 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: yep.. makes sense.. i'll create a lib folder with all of that

[10:24:22 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> cool

[11:37:58 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: would you mind reviewing this when you have a moment https://github.com/fluid-project/build.fluidproject.org/pull/1

[11:44:17 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> Justin_o: yep, looking at it now

[12:02:38 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Hi michelled - thanks for the GIANT MERGGE (smile)

[12:02:53 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> Bosmon: unfortunately, I shouldn't have pushed it (sad)

[12:03:00 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Oh dear

[12:03:03 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Has it broken things?

[12:03:09 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> the progress demo is broken - I was looking at fixing it - it shouldn't be a big deal

[12:03:28 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> that.update has been removed

[12:03:37 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> and it's being used in the demo on line 127

[12:03:59 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I changed to using fluid.progress.updateProgress, but I'm still getting an error

[12:04:20 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> then I got distracted by other work and haven't looked any farther

[12:04:41 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> It doesn't look like I removed it

[12:04:47 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> It would have been odd to do so : P

[12:05:49 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> And the update method is tested in the test cases....

[12:05:51 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> oh, hmmm… I didn't notice it in the invokers block

[12:06:07 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> is the progress demo working for you?

[12:12:55 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> No, it's not

[12:13:07 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> But that's probably only because it doesn't include FluidIoC.js

[12:36:45 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> Justin_o: I'm wondering if we should put a link to the demo sprint on the build site

[12:36:56 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> since we often point people to it

[12:38:02 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: hmm.. how long will that be up though… i thought we were going to be pulling it in as an integration demo

[12:39:06 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> yeah, but it won't have the new panels in it until we build those features

[12:39:27 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I'm betting there will be many a demo before that where we will want to show the outcome of the demo sprint

[12:42:01 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> what do you think, Justin_o?

[12:42:06 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: another question is how much we want to show off those features before they are fully built

[12:42:55 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: maybe we don't want to call it a demo

[12:43:09 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: it's probably more along the lines of a proof of concept

[12:43:16 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> Justin_o: I think we want to show them as a proof of concept

[12:43:28 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> (smile)

[12:44:24 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> i think that"s what a demo sprint is - then we do the hard work of making the proof of concept something that can be used by real users

[12:44:42 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> so the language on the build site might have to reflect that state

[12:44:53 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> but I still think we'd want to show it

[12:45:05 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: how many of those will we have

[12:46:15 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I'm not sure. but for example, it would be really nice if we were also able to have a link to the A4A proof of concept we built last year

[12:46:44 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> we will eventually make that real too, but right now we keep resorting to showing wireframes only

[12:47:20 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: i'm trying to think of where to put it.. I guess we can have a section for "Future Concepts" or "Experimentations" i wonder if those things should be put into fluid studios instead though

[12:47:22 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> unfortunately, in the A4A case, we don't have something that works right now

[12:47:52 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> Justin_o: I think colinclark was thinking that Fluid Studios had outlived its usefulness

[12:48:45 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: okay, but i think it still makes sense to keep a distinction between the experimental and the actual

[12:48:57 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> yes, I agree

[12:49:23 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> a section on the page that says "experimentations" or something along those lines makes sense to me

[12:49:58 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: okay

[12:53:48 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: I've updated my branch and the pull request with an "Experimentations" sections

[12:56:06 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: by the way i pushed up heidi's fix for VP

[13:13:15 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> nice, thx Justin_o

[21:24:58 CDT(-0500)] <milo1> hello?