►
From YouTube: June 3, 2021 - Backdrop Weekly
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Hello
folks,
it
is
june
3rd
2021,
and
this
is
the
backdrop
weekly
developer
meeting.
We
get
together
every
week
to
talk
about
all
things
backdrop
this
week
in
particular
we're
basically
opening
up
the
doors
looking
at
the
future
ahead
for
backdrop,
1.20,
which
will
be
coming
out
september,
15th
2021,
and
we're
just
going
to
be
going
through
some
items
that
some
of
them
are
long-term
feature
requests.
Some
of
them
are
more
recent
and
just
looking
at
feasibility
and
planning
and
deciding
how
to
move
forward
on
some
of
these
features.
A
So
we'll
do
some
quick
introductions.
First,
my
name
is
nate
lampton,
I'm
in
oakland
california,
a
quick
sketch
on
the
internet
and
I'm
a
court
committer
for
the
project.
Let's
go
ahead
and
get
an
answer
from
greg.
B
I
am
greg
usually
in
australia,
but
currently
in
greece,
interested
in
anything
related
to
backdrop
and
any
way
that
I
can
help
just
joining
the
marines
so
that
we
can
do
the
planning
and
see
what's
going
on
with
the
future
team.
C
Yeah,
I'm
not
muted,
am
I
nope,
I'm
tim
erickson,
saint
paul
tim,
I'm
in
deerwood,
minnesota
and
really
busy
this
week
might
have
skipped
the
meeting,
but
I
really
wanted
to
be
here
for
this
discussion,
so
I
look
forward
to
hearing
what
people
want
to
do
with
1.1
or
yeah
1.20,
one
two.
Whatever
so
justin
have
you
went
yet.
D
I'm
justin
christopherson,
I'm
in
denver,
colorado
and
just
help
out
with
infrastructure
tasks
here
and
there
and
I'll
pass
it
back
to
nate
all
right.
A
Thanks
justin,
so
1.20
september
15th
is
our
release
date.
A
We
kind
of
have
this
opportunity
to
take
a
look
at
features
that
we've
tried
to
do
in
the
past,
see
if
we
can
get
some
energy
behind
some
of
those
items
as
well
as
like,
of
course,
we're
always
open
to
new
ideas
and
new
features
that
haven't
been
brought
up
before,
but,
unfortunately,
a
lot
of
our
biggest
problems
are
not
new
like
we
know
what
our
biggest
features
are
and
the
biggest
hulls
are
in
the
system
and
it's
a
matter
of
getting
the
energy
and
willpower
behind
those
specific
issues
to
to
bring
them
to
completion.
A
Also,
almost
every
single
one
of
the
items
that
we
have
mentions
in
the
past
is
they
have
like
an
existing
effort
behind
them.
Most
of
them
have
even
been
started
to
the
point
of,
like
maybe
60,
to
75
percent,
and
it's
it's
getting
things
to
completion.
That,
of
course,
is
the
the
tricky
and
difficult
part
of
everything
a
lot
of
that
comes
down
to
upgrades
or
migrations
or
figuring
out
what
to
do
with
the
legacy
version
of
these
modules,
and
maybe
with
some
new
ideas
or
some
new
approaches.
A
We
might
be
able
to
make
compromises
to
say,
okay,
these
things
that
the
upgrade
path
is
really
difficult
on.
Let's
try
to
find
a
way
to
transition
those
things,
possibly
that
it's
like
not
quite
as
comprehensive
as
we
might
have
hoped,
but
but
moves
the
ball
forward.
A
So
the
list
of
items
that
is
fairly
comprehensive,
tim
put
together
survey
sites
long
time
ago,
survey.backdropcms.org
that
we
kind
of
just
like
loosely
assembled
a
list
of
features.
They
were
proposed
via
the
forums
and
then
assembled
into
the
survey,
and
then
the
responses
were
accrued
of
like
what
were
the
most
popular
things
to
to
work
on
via
voting
and
so
going
through.
A
A
The
number
one
feature
that
was
requested
in
that
survey
was
adding
field
group
functionality
to
core
issue
647,
which
is
all
which
has
always
been
a
surprise
to
me
that
that
that
one
rated
so
highly,
this
is
one
that,
as
far
as
I
know,
I
don't
think
there's
any
there's
no
pull
request
behind
it.
There's
really
just
a
discussion
and
it's
issue:
647.
A
there
is
a
contrib
module
for
backdrop
that
provides
this
functionality
so
pulling
into
core
could
be
one
of
the
easier
things
that
we
could
potentially
try
to
tackle
greg.
I
think
you
were
participating
in
this
discussion
a
bit.
I'm
curious.
If
you
know,
if
there's
any
variation
where
people
are
talking
about
well,
the
contrib
module
is
nice,
but
what
I
really
want
isn't
exactly
what
control
module
provides
if
there's
like
variations
or
an
adjustment
that
we
would
do
to
make
it
into
a
core.
B
I
haven't,
I
haven't
looked
into
that
discussion
for
quite
a
while,
but
as
you
say,
the
reason
why
there's
no
pull
request
yet
is
because
the
contrib
module
exists.
B
A
Yeah
I'm
seeing
like
just
skimming
over
it
that
there
was
some
discussion
saying.
Oh
my
gosh,
the
ui
needs
to
be
redone
because
it's
it's,
it
doesn't
scale
well,
while
other
people
are
saying
well,
maybe
we
should
just
put
it
in
as
is
right
now,
because
that's
what
people
want
and
and
then
iterate
yeah
exactly,
although
the
for
something
like
this,
it
makes
me
a
little
bit
nervous
that
field
group
module
can
trip,
has
the
opportunity
right
now
to
do
the
iteration
in
contrib,
and
it's
not
really
happening.
A
You
know,
and
so
I'd
be
a
little
bit
worried
that
the
odds
of
us
iterating
on
you
know,
I
mean
it's
moderately
important
or
moderate
moderately
requested,
but
it's
not
like
a
a
point
of
contention
like
usually
usually
if
things
work,
even
if
they're
a
little
bit
cumbersome
the
priority
on
fixing
the
cumbersomeness
is
not
really
very
high,
like
field
ui
is
the
classic
example
like
field
ui?
Is
a
super
clunky,
not
fun
interface?
To
do
yet
we
haven't,
you
know,
put
in
the
effort
to
like
re
work.
A
The
way
field
ui
works.
So
I
think
that
if
we
were
to
pursue
this
current
approach
of
let's
just
put
in
what
we
have
then
it'd
be
pretty
unlikely
that
we'd
iterate
it
on
in
the
future.
But
that
might
not
be
a
problem.
You
know,
maybe
if
we
get
the
functionality
in
court
and
that's
what
people
want
you
know,
then
they'll
be
okay
with
the
interface
that
we
have,
because
the
feature
is
there.
B
Yeah
and
what
usually
happens
is
that
people
that
are
using
the
core
products
usually
get
annoyed
by
little
things
that
they
they
see
every
day.
So
if
it's
right
in
the
face,
that's
when
they
start,
you
know
fixing
things
and
working
at
least
that's
the
case
for
me,
and
I
know
it's
the
same
for
peter
and
the
rest
of
the
people,
so
I
guess
yeah,
the
more
they
start
using
it.
The
more
quirks
will
be
fleshed
out
and
fixed.
I
guess.
A
Yeah,
I
think
this
comes
down
to
also
a
continuing
pattern
that
we've
always
kind
of
said
that
backdrop
in
a
way
differentiates
from
drupal,
and
that
core
is
where
most
of
the
attention
is
and
most
of
the
focus
is
and
when
stuff
is
in
core,
it's
more
likely
to
improve
than
when
it's
in
contrib
in
the
world
of
backdrop
which,
which
you
know
that's
very
different
than
the
world
of
drupal,
where
once
it's
in
core,
it
kind
of
you
know,
gets
frozen
in
time.
A
So
there's
that
that
difference
too,
I
suppose
that
putting
it
in
court
could
actually
increase
the
likelihood
of
it
happening.
B
Yeah-
and
I
guess
I
guess,
the
more
complex
sites
being
built,
the
more
this
functionality
is
required,
I'm
looking
at
the
screenshots
provided
by
was
it
phil
sword
yeah
the
previous.
The
last
comment
yeah
huge
thing,
but
so
it
seems
that
people
are
using
either
that
or
a
combination
of
that
in
paragraphs
to
build
things
so
yeah.
A
Well,
let's,
let's
kind
of
keep
going
because
we've
got
a
lot
of
possible
features
to
get
through
the
next
one
on
the
list
is
according
to
survey,
results
is
allowing
multiple
file
or
image
uploads
issue,
1380.
A
This
discussion
in
the
core
issue
queue
is
also
kind
of
an
interesting
one.
There's
no
pull
request
yet
on
getting
us
started,
but
there
is
a
discussion
about
how
we
would
want
to
handle
this
feature.
A
A
As
things
like
pausing
and
resuming
uploads
like
partial
uploads
and
then
completing
them
later,
let's
see
what
are
some
of
these
file
resup
module.
That
allows
you
to
do
that.
Let's
say:
drop
zone
gsu
and
let's
see,
if
there's
some
other
ones,
file
resub
drop
zone,
and
I
think
there
was
a
third
one
that
I've
seen
before
as
well.
There's
another
one
html5
upload.
A
That
probably
needs
to
be
answered
before
anything
is
what
kind
of
approach
are
we
looking
for
in
core
one
that
uses
like
a
javascript
based
library
like
what
was
that
one
that
we
just
mentioned
drop
zone,
something
that
uses
something
like
drop
zone
or
something
that
is
just
using
the
html5
capabilities
that
you
know
exist
now,
where
html5
has
been
able
to
do
multiple
file
uploads
for
quite
some
time
and
backdrop
core,
just
hasn't
ever
supported
that
so
there
are.
C
Nate,
I
remember
when
I
was
sort
of
working
on
config
recipes
with
the
idea
that,
like
I,
wanted
to
upload
a
batch
of
config
files
and
not
all
of
them
were
just
one
that
there
was
actually
a
sort
of
a
lack
of
support.
For
that
in
backdrop,
would
this
would
this
help
with
that
kind
of
like
possibly
with
something
like
config
recipes
or
not?
Is
this
more
of
a
front-end
exclusive.
A
It's
it's
not
just
front
ends
because
the
way
like
making
it
so
that
field
module
like
or
sorry
file
module.
If
you
upload.
B
A
If
you,
if
you
could
select
multiple
files,
then
it
needs
to
save
multiple
file
entities
on
the
back
end
when
they
save
but
yeah.
I
guess
it
could
be
related
in
a
way
tim
because
there's
like
this
tiered
level
of
things
that
need
to
happen
here
that
there's,
like
the
form
api
element.
A
Uploads
needs
to
support
multiple
uplinks
first
and
then
the
field
module
on
top
of
the
form
api
element
also
needs
to
be
able
to
support
it,
and,
if
that,
if
we
got
that
first
level
done,
then
yes,
that
would
make
it
so
that
you
could
do
things
like
you
know,
select
five
json
files
and
then
import
those
five
json
files
together.
A
But
I
mean
we
have
workarounds
that
you
could
do
for
the
time
being
like
you,
could
zip
them
up
together
and
then
import
that
collection
of
five
things,
and
I
think
that
the
for
config
management
being
able
to
import
a
partial
config
is
a
problem
that
I
think
that
that's
something
that
like
we
should
work
out.
That
problem
like
I
just
want
to
import
five
config
files
together
and
not
a
whole
config
file
thing.
A
I
think,
that's
one
thing
that
we
could
do
as
a
standalone
thing
you
know
like
we
could
zip
them
up
for
the
time
being
and
then
import
the
five
items
or
in
that
interface,
for
importing
and
exporting
where
it
uses
the
text
fields.
A
We
could
support
an
array
of
config
files
like
an
adjacent
string
and
import
five
of
them
at
a
time
or
export
five
of
them
at
a
time,
and
I
think
those
would
be
the
intermediate
steps
that
we
could
do
to
support
that
sort
of
thing
like
without
dealing
with
the
the
multiple
file
upload.
B
And
there
were
a
few
issues
with
uploading,
multiple
files.
We
should
take
a
look
at
what
d8
and
d9
have
done,
but
I
remember
that
at
some
point
it
was,
for
example,
not
when
you're
uploading
files
on
a
field
but
through
the
add
files
link
in
the
file
management
and
then
when
people
upload
remember
that
file
types
can
have
fields.
B
For
example,
images
have
alt
tag,
field,
name
or
alt
title
whatever
it's
called
so
in
drupal
once
say
you
uploaded
multiple
images,
then
you
had
multiple
instances
of
adult
type
for
this
one,
because
it's
required
right,
and
this
can
happen
in
other
field
types,
and
it
can
happen
in
in
backdrop
as
well.
If
the
file
type
that
you
have
has
a
custom
required
field
added
to
it.
B
A
A
Html5
upload
it
contrib
module,
which
I'm
taking
a
look
at
now,
and
my
expectation
of
the
amount
of
effort
that
it
would
take
to
support
html5
uploads
is
that
it
would
be
a
big
undertaking,
but
this
module
accomplishes
it
in
a
hundred
lines
of
code
and
it's
the
whole
thing
and
I'm
not
sure
if
lauren,
if
you're
able
to
speak
to
it
more
I'm
curious
if
this
kind
of
approach
could
be
adapted
to
core
as
something
that
is
like
you
know,
just.
E
I
didn't
first
of
all,
I
didn't
write
the
module,
it
was
supported
and
then
abandoned,
and
I
just
took
it
over
to
get
a
patch
in
that
made
it
work.
E
So
I
I
can't
speak
to
the
intricacies
of
it
that
well,
because
all
I
did
was
add
one
patch
to
it,
but
it
was
ported
from
a
sandbox
in
drupal
7..
It
was
never
an
official
drupal
7
module.
I
don't
think
okay.
E
A
I
am
completely
floored
here
that
this
works
this
kind
of
it
kind
of
shortcuts
it,
though
this
looks
like
it
makes
it
so
that
it
works
for
image
and
file
fields,
but
would
not
provide
the
capability
in
the
form
api.
It
just
kind
of
only
works
on
those
field
versions
which
it's
kind
of
interesting
and
also
kind
of
like
yeah.
That's
the
main
way
that
people
use
images
and
file
fields
in
backdrop
anyway,
so
I'm
kind
of
looking
at
this
thinking
that
might
be
okay.
B
So
that
that
would
be
included
if
it
is
to
be
included,
that
feature
would
be
in
the
file
module
right.
A
Correct
yeah
file,
file,
module
and
image
module.
D
A
A
So
that's
that's
interesting.
My
my
personal
preference,
like
as
far
as
like
library
versus
html
five
support,
is
that
I
would
I
would
be
strongly
in
favor
of
just
using
the
html5
multiple
file
upload.
Initially,
you
know
that
there's
an
html5
property
for
just
multiple
equals
true
and
then
your
browser
lets.
You
select
multiple
items.
A
Provide
all
of
the
functionality
that
a
javascript
library
might,
but
you
can
already
like,
drag
and
drop
onto
a
file
upload
in
a
browser,
and
the
browser
provides
that
functionality
already
the
progress
bar
backdrop
core
provides
progress
bar
as
well.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
that
works
with
multiple
file
uploads,
but
it
should
be
possible
as
well
just
like
what
a
a
library
like
dropzone.js
gets
us
against.
What
we
have
in
core
already
is
is
a
really
small
increase
in
functionality.
I
think
and
adding
another
library
that
we
need
to
update
and
maintain.
A
All
the
time
could
give
us
like
a
long-term
maintenance
concern.
Not
to
mention
like
drops
on
jazz
is
so
like
iterative
upon
html5
at
this
point
that
it's
possible
that
in
the
near
future,
it
could
be
eclipsed
by
native
browser
support,
possibly
yep.
B
Does
the
module
handle
media
asset
uploads
like
from
the
content
management?
Sorry
page,
the
file
management
page.
A
B
B
A
Yeah,
I
think
it
was
too
there
was
a
the
upgrade
path
and
there
was
one
other
issue
that
we've
had
a
discussion
about
this
more
recently
that
file
entities.
A
They
return
the
uri
that
is
inconsistent
with
other
types
of
entities.
So
when
you
link
to
a
file,
it
goes
directly
to
the
file
itself
and
all
other
entities
go
to
a
page
based
version
like
node,
slash,
10
or
comment,
slash,
10
or
user.
Slash,
10
and
files
are
exceptional
and
that
they
go
directly
to
the
file
and
as
far
as
like
making
it
so
that
a
global
reference
field
was
consistent,
then
we
would
need
to
make
files
like
have
a
page
that
they
linked
to
as.
A
I'm
sorry
so
yeah
there's
that
other
minor
problem
or
not
minor,
but
problem
of
note
but
yeah.
I
think
the
upgrade
path
is
the
really
big
hold
up
on
this,
because
there's
not
only
there's
not
only
the
one
contrib
module,
there's
like
three
right,
and
so
it's
like.
What
do
you
do
about
node
reference,
module
and
user
reference
module
and
then
there's
references,
module
and
contrib
and
I
might
be
wrong.
There
might
even
be
like
a
reference
and
references.
B
Take
if,
if
we
have
the
functionality
in
place
and
what
we're
missing
is
the
migration
bit,
it
seems
that
it's
a
big
undertaking
to
do
the
migrations
for
three
modules
or
possible
modules.
Could
we
add
the
functionality
as
a
hidden
module
in
core
like
do
baby
steps
and
then
support
one
of
these
like
one
of
these
modules
at
a
time
yeah,
I
think
similar
similar
how
we've
done
with
automated
automatic
core
updates,
where
we
say
coming
soon.
A
Soon,
whenever
oh,
I
remember
the
other
one
entity
reference
right,
so
there's
any
reference
as
well,
so
reference
module
the
contrib
version
backdrop
contrib,
slash
reference
is
the
module
that
mike
had
been
working
on
as
the
candidate
for
what
should
be
included
in
core
and
it's
written
in
a
way
that
is
like
it's
written
in
the
same
style
as
the
rest
of
core.
It
doesn't
depend
on
any
third-party
things
like
entity,
entity,
api
from
drupal,
7
or
entity
plus
from
backdrop.
A
So
it's
it's
made
with
no
dependencies.
It's
it's
targeted
at
court
and
it's,
I
think,
also
reasonably
well
used.
Let
me
look
at
what
the
usage
statistics
say
for
reference
module.
A
Oh,
it's
actually
not
that
widely
used
actually
providing
an
upgrade
path
from
reference
module.
The
contrib
version
to
the
core
version
would
be
like
our
other
modules
that
we
would
just
have
to
say
this
module
has
been
integrated
into
core.
You
know
it
would.
It
would
raise
the
status
message
when
you
run
update.php.
It
would
probably
disable
it
and
then
tell
you,
hey,
remove
this
module
from
your
code
base,
so
we
have
a
process
for
incorporating
modules.
A
So
I
think
we
could
do
that
and
just
make
it
so
that
there's
one
supported
upgrade
path
for
a
module
that
conveniently
at
least
has
existed
for
several
years
now.
So
people
have
the
opportunity
to
at
least
use
it
on
their
on
their
sites,
but
I'm
afraid
that
most
people
still
are
using
node
reference
and
user
reference
module,
which
are
the
drupal
7
equivalents,
and
it
provides
upgrade
paths
from
triple
seven.
A
And
so
I
think
that
the
unblocking
approach
for
this
would
be
put
reference
module
into
core
move
forward
on
that
and
not
provide
a
core
based
upgrade
path
for
node
and
user
reference
module
and
let
contrib
provide
a
solution
for
moving
from
one
to
the
other.
B
So
so
mike
was
working
on
the
reference,
singular
module
references.
A
The
singular
version
reference
yeah
references
module
is
really
just
a
collection
of
node
reference
and
user
reference
module
from
drupal
7.
B
Okay
does
incontribute
from
what
I
see
there's
references
that
has
a
little
bit
less
than
300
installations
and
then
entity
reference
which
has
180
close,
but
I
don't
see
any
reference,
or
at
least
not
in
the
top
100.
A
Yeah
reference
module
is
not
widely
used;
it
only
has
five
listed
like
installs,
so
it's
the
least
popular
solution,
because
it's
not
compatible
with
the
drupal
7
version.
So
if
you're
upgrading
from
triple
seven,
you
upgraded
to
the
equivalent
module
in
backdrop
whether
it
was
entity
reference
entity,
reference
in
any
reference
or
node
reference
to
node
reference,
but
nobody
was
using
reference
module
in
triple
7
because
it
didn't
exist.
So
the
backdrop
native
version
is
the
least
frequently
used.
C
C
C
C
C
Yes,
so
in
the
the
the
this
issue
was
just
updated
last
september
for
the
the
original
issue
for
the
meta
for
ad
references
to
core,
and
it
defines
three
blockers
there
that
that
need
to
be.
C
E
For
what
it's
worth,
there's
a
there's,
an
issue
in
the
queue
there
somewhere.
I
don't
know
the
number
of
hand
where
somebody
has
provided
a
pr
that
does
an
upgrade
path
from
references
as
well
as
a
few
other
things,
and
I
pulled
the
piece
out
that
does
the
upgrade
from
references,
and
I
ran
that,
and
it
worked
with
the
the
one
caveat
that
I
had
to
do
a
clear
cache
at
the
end.
E
I
think
because
it
got
a
white
screen,
so
I
think
I
think
that
pr,
basically
just
needed
to
have
the
upgrade
path
to
references
pulled
out
as
a
separate
pull
request.
If
I
remember
correctly,.
A
Yeah,
it's
it's
interesting
that
yeah
looking
at
this,
we
were
talking
about
putting
this
in
all
the
way
back
in
2016
as
being
like.
Oh,
we
could
almost
like
push
this.
D
A
In
you
know
four
years
ago
as
being
like
ready,
but
there
were
some
some
caveats
there.
E
A
Yeah
lauren:
do
you
have
any
thoughts
yourself
about
what
we
would
do
with
such
an
upgrade
path?
Like
you
know,
if
we
put
it
in
like
how
would
you
execute
it,
you
know,
how
would
we
convey
that
to
users,
like
I'm
not
sure
like
wise,
like
if
they
were
building
on
top
of
any
reference
or
they
form
altered
it?
A
I'm
not
really
sure
if
there's
any
yeah
any
realistic
way
for
us
to
say
that
you
can
safely
do
this
to
your
site,
it
seems
like
it'd
have
to
be
like
an
opt-in
type.
E
Yeah,
I
think
everybody's
herb
duo
commented
somewhere
along
the
way
too,
but
this
would
have
to
be
optional.
Some
people
may
want
to
keep
the
old
version.
We
can't
force
them
to
do
anything
here,
so
there
have
to
be
some
way
to
opt
in.
I
think.
B
And
in
drupal
end,
unless
I'm
horribly
wrong,
they've
converted
the
whole
tags
like
vocabularies
to
entities
taxonomy,
sorry
to
entertain
the
reference
and
that's
what
they're
using
now.
A
Yeah,
I
guess
we
didn't
even
touch
on
that.
That's
a
whole
nother
can
of
worms.
That's
like
what
about
the
other
reference
modules
like
core
includes
term
reference,
module
and
taxonomy.
I
mean
it's
not
a
module,
but
term
reference
is
part
of
taxonomy
module,
and
would
we
replace
that?
Can
they
can
these
things
be
follow-ups
yeah
like
yes,.
B
A
Yeah,
it
could
be
yeah
a
little
bit
strange
that
for
a
site
builder
like
you,
could
set
up
a
term
reference
field
or
there
would
just
be
reference
field.
That
is
a
generic.
A
And
the
way
reference
module
is
right
now
it
includes
taxonomy
terms
as
well,
so
there
would
be
two
ways
of
doing
taxonomy
term
references,
one
that
is
the
generic
way
and
one
that
is
the
specific
way
and
right
now
they
also
have
different
capabilities,
because
term
reference
can
create
a
taxonomy
term
on
the
fly
like
free
tagging,
style
and
entity
reference
or
sorry,
the
reference
module
cannot
and
when
drupal
8
kind
of
merged
them
together,
they
made
it
so
that
you
could
auto
create
any
type
of
entity
on
the
fly
by
making
a
reference
to
it,
which
is
a
little
bit
weird
because,
like
you,
could
like
make
a
blog
post
just
by
specifying
a
title
for
example,
or
comment
just
by
specifying
a
title,
and
that
feature
doesn't
make
sense
for
anything
really
other
than
taxonomy
terms.
A
C
Can
can
I
ask
nate
because
we're
running
out
of
time
is
the
purpose
of
this
discussion
or
other
discussions
just
to
like
talk
about
these
things
and
hopefully
give
people
information
so
that
they
can
get
excited
and
advocate
for
these
issues,
or
are
we
hoping
to
sort
of
like
try
to
build
consensus
and
say,
let's,
as
a
group
go
after
this?
You
know
let's
pick
one
and
try
to
go
after
it.
A
I
think
great
question,
I
think
it's
both,
I
think
you
know
like
I.
I
think
that
by
providing
updates
on
where
these
things
are,
it
will
put
it
to
the
front
of
our
minds
as
being
like
what
is
necessary
here
and
then
hopefully
spark
someone's
interest
in
potentially
undertaking
these
things.
I
know
just
like
reading
through
these
might
you
know
like
I
could
do
that
brain
starts
going.
B
A
Yeah,
the
the
alternative
that
you
suggest
him
is
interesting
as
well.
It's
like,
as
a
group,
could
we
just
say
like
pick
one
of
them
and
commit
to
it.
You
know
saying
we
really
could
do
this
thing
this
release,
because
any
one
of
these
things
would
be
a
huge
feature
for
us.
You
know
definitely
a
headline
making
thing.
A
That
would
be
quite
an
accomplishment
for
any
single
release
and
if
we
were
able
to
choose
one
of
them-
and
you
know,
get
several
people
committed
to
it,
then
it
would
really
increase
the
chances
of
it
getting
done.
C
Okay,
well,
the
next
one
on
the
list.
Config
management
has
the
advantage
of
some,
but
like
references
is
one
that
everybody
keeps
saying
it's
important.
We
should
do
it,
but
I
don't
know
that
there's
been
any
momentum
on
it
lately
the
config
recipes
one
is
one
where
we
do
have
a
little
bit
of
momentum
coming
out
of
the
last
backdrop
live-
and
you
know
like
what's
more
important,
an
issue
with
momentum,
that's
less
important
or
an
issue,
that's
important,
but
with
less
momentum
I
don't
know
like.
C
A
Yeah
config
recipes
has
the
obvious
issue
that
we
have
discussed
recently.
So
config
recipes
has
a
meta
issue
at
37.63,
but
it
has
a
a
bug
fix
actually
at
32
24.
That
is
a
pull
request
that
just
needs
review.
That
would
really
substantially
help
the
concept
of
recipes
by
making
it
so
that
you
could
include
fields
in
a
module's
default
config,
and
that
would
make
it
so
that
you
know
you
could
make
a
recipe
and
it
would
just
be
a
module.
A
I
yeah
this.
This
is
one.
That's
we
like
I'm
not
even
sure
that
we
even
need
an
advocate
for
it,
because
it's
like
it's
just
like.
We
just
need
to
review
this
pull
request.
It's
there
it's
working
and
we
just
need
some
some
eyeballs
on
it.
It's
even
slated
for
a
bug
fix
release,
not
even
a
major
or
sorry
minor
release,
so
its
capability
to
get
completed
is
like
it's
right.
There.
C
Yep,
although
I'll
just
raise
that,
I
I
think
that
there's
the
technical
issue
of
making
it
happen,
but
there's
also
sort
of
a
policy
decision,
because
so
once
technically
you
can
have
a
recipe.
What
do
we
do
with
them
in
our
in
our
environment?
Right?
I
don't
think
we
have
a
project
type
for
recipes
and
if
my
understanding
is
is
that
the
current
thought
is
that,
basically,
you
can
create
a
module
that
isn't
a
sense
of
recipe,
so
our
recipes
just
modules
or
do
we
want
to
create
a
new
project
type
for
them?
A
Yeah
yeah,
I
agree
they
could
tie
in
a
little
bit
to
the
additional
metadata
for
modules
issue
that
projects
now
can
specify
tags
in
their
info
file.
I
think
it
is
and
that
we
could
just
have
like
a
whole
category
of
modules,
just
called
recipes.
That
is
just
like
intended
to
be
like
hey
this
module
pre-configures
stuff
for
you,
you
know,
and
that
could
just
be
a
way
of
categorizing,
a
specific
type
of
module.
A
Sure
yeah,
interesting
yeah,
like
you
say
tim,
we
are
running
really
short
on
time.
We
only
have
a
couple
of
minutes
before
we
need
to
hit
a
stop,
so
I
think
I'll
run
through
the
other
items
here
that
at
least
are
on
the
list.
Adding
an
icon
font
to
core
issued
30
or
364
automatic
updates
issue.
A
2018
expose
fields
to
visibility,
conditions,
issue
4728
this
one
we
have
been
talking
about
on
a
weekly
basis
is
one
that
jen
has
been
interested
in
and
then
expose
the
file
name
filter
to
the
media
library,
dialog
issue
3293,
and
this
issue
has
been
unblocked
as
well.
Laryn
has
has
figured
out
an
alternative
approach
there,
so
that
one
also
is
is
moving
forward
kind
of
on
its
own
right
now.
A
So
those
are
the
items
that
I
just
I
just
kind
of
took
the
top
most
items
from
the
survey.
There's
more
of
them,
though,
that
that
are
valid
as
well,
oh,
and
we
also
have,
of
course,
initiatives
with
telemetry
that
is
also
moving
along
on
its
own
pace,
so
yeah
yeah.
What
we
do
with
these
items
is,
is
you
know
the
open
question
tim?
I
think
you,
you
kind
of
nailed
it.
A
Maybe
we
need
to
make
some
or
have
a
discussion
about
like
which
approach
we
want
to
use,
or
if
we
do
the
normal
free-for-all,
like
hey,
if
we're
interested
in
it,
then
it
moves
that
forward,
because.
B
B
We,
if
we
pick
one,
we
need
to
find
people,
or
at
least
one
person
to
start
working
on
it.
That's
that's
the
current
sort
of
like
paradigm
of
having
the
advocacy
for
the
minor
releases.
If
we
sort
of
like
stick
to
the
current
plan
of
allowing
people
to
work
on
other
things,
because
it's
not
the
one
thing
that
we
pick,
others
might
want
to
work
on
other
things.
B
Maybe
we
can
still
go
by
what
we
used
to
do,
but
pick
one
and
then
sort
of
like
make
a
commitment
as
a
community
that
the
focus
is
going
to
be
on
that
and
it
could
be
one
of
the
the
the
ones
that
we
have
in
the
list
currently
or
it
could
be
an
additional
one
right.
So
what
I'm
saying
is
we
have
one
that
we
should
strive
to
get
in
as
soon
as
possible
with
the
the
next
release,
and
then
we
have
the
regular
list
of
people.
B
You
know
the
usual
suspects
that
work
on
other,
smaller
things
or
not
necessarily
smarter,
but
you
know
other
things.
B
A
I
think
nate's
only
got
one
minute
so
yeah
I
do
so.
I'm
gonna
have
to
say
yeah.
Let's
do
it
next
week.
Let's
keep
talking
about
our
road
mapping
next
week
and
let's
discuss
on
on
zulip
as
well
and
the
forum,
I
think,
would
probably
be
the
best
place
for
discussing
this.
Like
you
know,
what
should
we
do
in
1.20,
so
those
two
avenues
are
where
we
can
discuss
in
the
meantime
and
then
next
week,
we'll
just
kind
of
pick
up
this
discussion
and
can
keep
talking
about
where
120
is
headed.
A
That's
it
yeah.
I
hate
to
leave
when
things
just
get
interesting
as
it
seems
to
always
happen,
but
yeah
we'll
wrap
up
for
today
and
we'll
talk
to
you
all
again
next
week.
Thank
you.
Okay,
all
right
thanks,
folks,
really
appreciate.