►
From YouTube: Backdrop Weekly - Apr 16, 2020
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
B
C
E
A
B
I
did
just
to
acknowledge
it.
I
think
that
I've
brought
it
up
in
weeks
past,
because
this
has
been
put
together.
Three
weeks
ago,
BW
Panda
is
working
on
assembling
using
tugboat
tugboat
QA
is
the
service
that
we
use
for
demo
sandboxes
on
the
home
page.
When
you
click
try
backdrop,
it
spends
up
a
demo
on
tugboat
and
he's
suggesting
that
we
use
tugboats
keyway
for
sand
boxes
as
well
that
right
now
we're
using
Zen
CI,
first
and
boxes
I'm,
honestly,
not
sure
which
way
to
go
on
this.
One
I
think
that.
B
The
tugboat
is
probably
like
moderately
more
well
supported
than
Zen.
Ci
is
I,
think
that
Gore,
who
put
together
as
NCI
and
the
integration
for
backdrop,
has
a
strong
commitment
to
the
backdrop
project,
but
Zen
CI,
like
as
a
project
or
as
a
product.
More
importantly,
I'm
not
sure
if
it
ever
has
gotten
off
the
ground.
So
so
we
some
moving
to
tugboat,
could
be
a
good
long-term
proposition
for
us.
B
But
generally
speaking,
the
sandbox
is
on
Zen,
see
I
work
pretty
well,
so
so
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
strong
to
do
it
right
now,
however,
it
could
be
smart
of
us
looking
forward
to
consider.
Pivoting
tugboat
also
has
given
backdrop
essentially
an
unlimited
account,
so
we
can
do
as
many
demos
as
we
want.
B
However,
I'm
not
totally
sure
how
they'd
feel
about
this
versus
like
right
now,
we
have
like
roughly
about
20
sand
boxes
open
at
any
given
time
because
they
tear
down
after
a
day
but
the
number
of
pull
requests.
We
have
open
numbers
in
the
hundreds
and
that's
how
many
sand
boxes
would
need
to
be
maintained
at
all
times.
B
Anyway.
The
only
thing
they'd
say
that
holds
that
up
is
one
when
you
talk
to
core
see
how
he
feels
about
this
and
two
we
put
functionality
into
project
module
to
make
it
possible
to
exclude
files
from
the
repository
and
Zen
CI
doesn't
require
us
to
have
a
dot,
Zen
CI
yamo
file
in
our
route,
but
tugboat
will,
and
so
we
need
to
make
a
new
release
project
module
to
make
it
so
that
that
functionality
exists
in
the
current
release.
B
And
then
we
need
to
update
backdrop,
CMS
orgs
packager
to
to
exclude
talk
about
yamo
files
as
well
as
possibly
other
things
so
that'll
make
it
so
that
we
can
have
things
that
are
specifically
developer
related
to
our
workflows,
like
we
may
also
in
the
near
future,
start
using
github
actions,
for
example,
or
another
CI
service
and
I.
Don't
think
we
want
those
CI
files
configuration
files
to
end
up
in
our
downloadable
packages
of
backdrop,
just
because
they're
only
relevant
to
core
development
I
think.
B
A
B
G
B
B
A
B
I,
don't
think
there
is,
unless
anyone
here
has
something
that
would
like
to
promote
as
being
something
that
could
use
some
immediate
attention.
We
do
still
have
a
lot
of
open
issues
in
the
115
milestone,
there's
65
open
issues,
many
of
which
are
needs
review.
I'm.
Sorry,
that's
not
totally
true,
many
of
which
got
reviewed
recently.
Actually,
doc
Bowman
went
to
the
entire
list
and
reviewed
all
of
them.
That's
what
I've
heard
at
least,
and
so
that
moved
a
lot
of
them
their
statuses
around
quite.
F
B
A
A
G
G
G
A
Usually
add
a
comment
on
the
pull
request
if
I
make
a
replacement
one
and
then
that
way,
the
people
who
worked
on
it
initially
could
come
back
and
review
it
if
they
wanted
to
you're
at
least
notifying
them
of
it.
But
I
don't
know
that
there's
any
kind
of
etiquette
where
we
need
to
allow
the
original
creator
of
the
pull
request
a
chance
to
come
back
and
work
on
it
if
they
want.
You
I
think
that's
what
I'm
asking.
G
B
However,
if
if
I'm
in
a
hurry
and
like
want
to
get
it
done
like
right
now,
then
I
just
I
think
I.
Don't
think
that
we
should
say
that
it's
bad
to
do
that.
I
think
that
everyone
appreciates
any
work
that
moves
forward
their
issues,
whether
or
not
it's
in
by
somebody
reviewing
their
stuff
or
by
somebody
reworking
their
stuff
to
push
it
forward.
I
think
all
forward
movement
is
always
good.
It's
just
a
matter
of
whether
or
not
letting
the
other
person
do.
B
The
work
themselves
like
makes
them
feel
even
better,
so
they're,
both
good
but
letting
them
do
it
themselves,
might
be
better,
so
I
think
the
little
warning
like
the
heads
up
like
hey.
Do
you
have
time
to
work
on
this?
Otherwise
I'm
going
to
take
a
stab
at
it.
I
think
that
that's
always
a
good
idea
to
go
that
way.
First,
if
you
have
time
to
allow
that.
A
B
A
I
kind
of
feel
like
it
in
general,
if
somebody
creates
a
pull
request,
that
pull
request
is
like
this
code
is
no
not
mine
anymore.
It's
now
like
public
and
that
allows
anyone
to
come
and
take
it
and
do
whatever
they
want
with
it.
But
if
you
can
say
oh
do
you
want
to
keep
working
on,
do
whatever
and
have
a
collaboration?
That's
better,
but
in
general
it's
it's
out
there.
A
I
don't
know
if
it
feels
like
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
downside
to
taking
things
reworking
them
and
putting
them
up,
especially
if
you
can
do
it
in
a
way
where
you
can
retain
their
commits
or
at
least
make
sure
they're
in
the
get
commit
history.
So
when
it
does
get
fixed,
they
get
credit
for
it.
But
I,
don't
know,
I,
think
it's
it's
nice
to
offer
sometimes
I'll.
Add
a
comment,
be
like
hey.
B
Okay,
thank
you
eventually,
someday
fingers
crossed
github
will
have
collaborative
for
requests,
and
then
that
would
be
so
great
because
right
now,
there's
a
checkbox
when
you
submit
a
pull
request
that
says:
allow
commits
from
maintainer
x',
which
is
nice,
that
it
asks
the
person
who's
filing
the
pull
request.
Is
it
okay?
If
someone
else
changes
this?
B
H
F
A
B
Okay,
so
116
is
the
next
minor
version
of
backdrop
that
will
be
coming
out.
May
15th
with
feature
freeze
on
May
1st.
Actually
before
we
go
into
the
individual
issues.
You
know
earlier
this
week.
Jen
had
asked
me
about
what
should
be
our
final
feature:
freeze
dates,
sometimes,
when
feature
freeze
lands
on
a
weekend
or
a
holiday,
we
say
at
the
end
of
the
weekend
or
at
the
end
of
the
holiday
is
when
feature
freeze
actually
occurs.
This
lands
on
Friday,
May,
1st
and
Jen.
B
So
we
don't
really.
We
don't
really
have
a
way
of
saying
when
feature
freeze
officially
ends
like
because
we
we
you
normally
decide
them
on
these
calls,
honestly
that
it's
like
does
that
make
sense
and
for
whatever
reason,
normally
that
falls
to
me,
probably
as
core
committers
it
does
affect.
You
know
the
time
that
I
available
to
do
things.
B
A
It's
a
good
reminder
that
features
can
get
in
before
feature
freeze
like
we've
had
a
whole
bunch
of
issues
and
no
116
milestone
that
have
already
been
merged,
which
is
great
and
I.
Think
encouraging
people
to
get
things
done
before
the
last
minute
is
also
good
and
moving.
The
mile
marker
to
give
people
more
time
to
procrastinate
might
not
be
well.
E
F
E
B
Right
and
that
and
really
I
wish
that
it
was
continuous,
like
the
everybody
was
always
getting
the
feedback
that
they
needed
much
more
promptly
and
I
I
wish
that
I
could
commit
to
that.
But
you
know
I
can't
and
I'm,
hoping
that
by
adding
on
additional
core
committers
like
BW
panda
that
that
happens
more
frequently
right.
So
that's
the
way
we're
trying
to
soften
it
right
now,
but
also
you
know,
I've
also
just
been
trying
to
get
through
what
we
have
out
there
right
now
more
regularly.
B
So
I
think
that
that
that
I'll
go
ahead
and
say
like
the
days
that
I'll
commit
to
doing
this
more
frequently
will
definitely
be
the
weekend
before
so
the
25th
and
the
26th
of
April
and
we'll
see
about
this
weekend,
but
but
I
think
the
weekend
before
the
25th
and
the
26th
like
I'll,
be
dedicating
that
time
to
making
a
quick
cycle
of
feedback
for
people.
Okay,.
B
B
Update
so
so,
116
features
that
we're
working
on
the
first
one
that
we've
got
here
is
the
one
that
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
good
news,
or
at
least
not
by
my
perspective,
so
Basin
sub,
install
profiles
issued
31,
74
BW
panda
is
the
advocate
for
this.
One
and
I
was
also
the
one
who's
been
doing
most
of
the
work,
and
there
hasn't
been
enough
time
for
him
to
post
a
response
to
this.
But
I
posted
my
thoughts
on
this
yesterday
and
Joseph.
Your
input
here
could
also
be
useful
to
confirm
what
it
is
that.
F
F
B
And
I
think
that,
even
if
you
like
last,
we
talked
Joseph,
you
said
that
we
could
consolidate
some
of
the
differences
between
the
way
the
testing
system
does
installation
and
the
way
the
normal
install
process
works
would
you'd
be
great
to
consolidate
those
things
out
today.
So
there's
more
code,
reuse
between
the
two
approaches,
but
even
then
there's
still
going
to
be
two
different
approaches
that
have
some
code
reuse.
B
E
Had
initial
reaction
to
this
is
in
the
as
an
issue
too
was
at
first
it
felt
like
a
really
French
case
and
then
I
realized.
I
was
a
well
I,
don't
know
at
the
time,
I
was
working
on
some
installed
profiles
and
I
thought
yeah.
This
would
be
useful
to
me
and
now
I've
kind
of
moved
away
from
that
approach.
For
my
work,
I'm
doing
something
different,
so
I
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
if
that
needs
to
be
in
court
or
not.
F
H
F
B
B
You
know
in
my
install
file
file
and
then
I
literally
just
included
the
standard
profile
and
called
standard
install
and
then
I
did
the
two
extra
steps
after
afterwards,
so
it
it
it's
like
a
sub
profile
and
that
it
it's
calling
the
original
one
and
then
executing
everything
and
then
doing
one
additional
thing.
But
it's
yeah.
But
it's
not
really.
B
B
B
B
The
next
issue
that
we've
got
here
is
the
new
text.
Format
configuration
user
interface
issued
1032
clonise
is
the
advocate
for
this
one
and
doc.
Waldman
has
done
the
implementation
on
this.
This
one
has
been
sitting
in
the
needs
review
list
for
quite
some
time.
I
know
Jen
and
I
both
looked
at
it,
but
I've
not
actually
posted
comments.
B
G
Both
of
those
would
be
useful
to
have
somebody
know,
as
the
court
is
concerned,
anything
that
has
jQuery
in
it
to
be
honest,
I
am
never
confident
that
it's
finished.
This
I
hate
the
stuff,
so
I've
sort
of
paused
right
there
just
leave
it,
but
for
somebody
comments
why
the
user
interface
would
be
good.
B
B
We
say
yes,
we
did
something
and
got
get
that
this
one
moved
off
of
our
weekly
agenda,
so
you
guys
don't
have
to
hear
about
it
every
week
anymore,
this
one
kind
of,
like
other
ones,
had
been
sitting
there
for
a
long
time
like
waiting
for
final
eyeballs,
and
that
finally
happened.
Let's
see
what
yeah
Jen
mark
to
our
TBC
two
weeks
ago
and
I
finally
went
through
and
and
got
it
merged
in.
So
thank
you.
Jen.
B
Next
up
forward
forward
revisions
or
allowing
forward
revisions
issue
4354,
we
had
some
chat
about
this
before
the
recording.
But
there's
a
lot
to
be
said
here:
doc,
Wilmont,
you've
been
doing
most
of
the
implementation
and
Tim
you've
been
doing
a
lot
of
the
feedback
and
direction
on
things
Tim.
Could
we
start
with
you
and
maybe
give
us
an
update
on
how
things
are
proceeding
on
that
issue?
I.
E
E
E
Who's
been
coming
to
this
issue
late
that
this
started
out
to
be
this
issues
of
morphed
a
lot,
so
it
started
out
to
be
adding
some
extra
behind-the-scenes
capability
for
controls
and
advanced
workflows,
and
it's
become
very
focused
on
the
specific
forward
revisions
feature
so
I
think
right
now
the
discussions
about
naming
things
there's
some
still
debate
about
exactly
what
things
should
be
named
and
how
to
handle
that
button.
On
the
notes.
E
B
E
B
H
B
D
B
Draft
so
draft
has
been
renamed
offline
and
then
down
at
the
bottom.
There
are
now
two
buttons
one
for
save
and
one
for
save
draft
and
they
do
different
things,
but
from
a
user
interface
perspective,
it's
confusing
to
me
that
I
could
do
something
like
select
offline
and
then
hit
save
or,
conversely,
I
could
leave
it
as
published,
but
then
click
save
draft
and
conceptually
in
my
mind
those
two
things
sound
like
they
would
do
the
same
thing
that
neither
of
them
make
it
so
that
the
content
is
visible
to
an
end
user.
B
An
offline
saved
copy
or
a
published
draft
seemed
weird
when,
in
you
know
neither
of
them
actually
make
something.
That's
publicly
visible,
at
least
that's
what
I
would
expect,
but
the
functionality
they
have
when
you
actually
use
them
result
in
different
things.
So
yeah
the
the
draft
thing
seems
like
it
makes.
B
B
So
we've
got
this
test
page
yeah.
If
you
click
on
it,
you'll
see
that
this
is
probably
just
a
bug.
Oh,
oh!
Maybe
it
did
get
published
the
first
time
you
publish
something
this
page
isn't
actually
accessible.
Only
the
revisions
are
accessible,
which
is
just
weird
but
I'm,
guessing
that
that
that's
not
intended
so
anyway.
The
big
issue
that
I
had
with
buttons
was
that
the
button
combinations
can
result
in
confusion.
B
B
Maybe
offline
city
stays
his
draft
instead
and
when
draft
is
selected,
there's
a
button
that
says
save
draft
and
when
published
is
selected,
the
button
says
save
or
it
says
the
word
publish,
so
the
buttons
update
to
match
the
actions
happening.
That's
what
it
expects
as
an
end
user
as
a
developer.
I
know
that
these
things
are
doing
different
things
when
you
click
on
different
buttons,
and
so
that
doesn't
actually
work
that
way.
But
that's
what
I
would
want
as
an
end-user
is
that
the
button
should
reflect
the
action
that
is
being
taken.
B
E
E
It's
the
note
is
gonna
stay
published,
no
matter
no
matter
what,
in
this
case,
but
I
might
want
to
make
changes
to
this
approved
version
and
have
those
be
approved
or
I
might
want
to
create
a
new
draft
right,
so
I'm
just
leaving
what
that's
I'm
just
trying
to
define
what
the
problem
is.
So
you
know,
without
changing
these
buttons
at
all.
I
have
a
use
case
for
both
of
these
buttons
right,
save
the
the
approved
version
or
create
a
new
draft,
and
we
did
didn't.
A
A
A
It
might
be
something
like
save
and
leave
approves
that's
not
good
language,
but
something
that
indicates
it
like
saving.
This
saves
the
thing
you're
editing
and
replaces
the
approved
copy
versus
make
a
new
copy.
That's
the
new
draft
I,
don't
know
it's
even
here
also
because
if
it's
already
approved
people
wouldn't
mind
approving
it
twice,
I
think
that's
better
than
just
save
so.
E
G
Feel
like
apologizing
to
somebody,
no
confusing
I'm,
really
I'm,
really
not
sure
what
to
do.
I
think
all
community
public
versus
revision
is
just
a
new
concept
and
I'm
not
sure
exactly
I'm,
not
sure
how
we
can
resolve
it
as
a
deal
either.
Somehow
we
have
to
come
to
a
decision
with
it.
Maybe
we
should
just
not
do
this
and
just.
A
Of
new
draft
I
think
it
looks
good.
The
problem,
I
think
is
with
the
radio
buttons
like
me,
pointed
out,
when
those
are
in
conflict
with
the
buttons
and
I
think
that
for
the
combinations
that
don't
make
sense,
we
can
do
stuff
with
the
buttons
like.
If
you
had
an
unpublished
node,
is
there
a
version?
That's
impossible.
I,
don't
know
if
you
hadn't
Tunstall
code
and
you
wanted
to
make
it
unapproved
draft.
A
A
E
D
D
D
E
A
Save
new
revision
you're
going
to
get
something
else,
and
so
it
made
it
more
clear
what
was
happening
but
I
do
like
I.
Do
like
the
having
the
revision.
Information
on
the
publishing
options.
Field
set.
I
think
that
that
helps
a
little
bit,
because
that's
where
people
are
going
to
be
fiddling
with
like?
Is
it
a
draft
revision
or
is
it
an
approved
for
vision
and
having
the
revision
information
there.
A
Don't
have
to
connection
via
this
is
also
gonna,
be
confusing
for
people,
because
the
the
top
three
options
control
what
happens
to
the
node
and
the
bottom
save
new
revision,
an
original
iMessage
controls.
What
happens
to
it,
revision
and
people
might
think.
That's
the
same
thing.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
problem,
thinking
yeah
you.
B
B
What
I
would
imagine
how
I
think
I
even
said
this
in
an
earlier
version
of
things
is
that
by
doing
different
combinations
of
things,
the
results
would
be
different,
that
if
he
said
draft
and
save
new
revision,
that
would
make
a
forward,
unpublished,
revision
right
and
if
he
said,
publish
and
save
new
revision.
Then
it
would
make
a
new
revision
and
make
that
the
active
revision.
A
B
That's
what
it's
doing
now,
but
I'm
saying
what
I'm
saying
what
would
change
with
this
is
that
checking
save
new
revision
would
affect
the
revision.
Not
the
whole
node
and
same
with
everything
else
published
would
affect.
The
publish
of
the
revision
draft
would
affect
whether
or
not
it
was
a
forward
draft
yeah.
A
B
A
H
B
Right
well,
yeah,
I
I
can
definitely
agree
with
that
and
and
when
reviewing
the
this
overall
pull
request,
I
get
that
sense
all
over
the
place
about
this.
You
know
having
buttons
that
say
approve
you
know
when
maybe
you're
on
a
single
person
blog
like
it's
weird,
like
the
concept
of
having
a
workflow
system
that
is
inherent
in
the
system
that
you
can't
turn
off,
that
it's
just
like
you
say
edge.
That
revisions
might
be
uncommon,
but
workflow
is
even
less
common
and,
as
it's
currently
implemented,
it
would
be
unable
to
turn
it
off.
Well,.
A
B
B
A
B
D
Yeah
but
Andy
and,
for
example,
I
enabled
revisions
with
the
author
options
to
disable
them
with
the
editors.
So,
and
so,
just
in
case
you
have
a
back
up
of
the
content
in
Quebec
can
go
back
to
a
certain
revision
and
that's
all
is
happening
without
that
people
see
it,
but
it's
good
to
have
this
and
with
a
new
PR,
it's
too
visible
and
also
confusing,
in
my
opinion.
So
this
use
case
is
not
covered.
I
D
You
know,
for
example,
also
I
had
a
look
at
WordPress
and
they
seem
to
have
revisions
by
default.
Every
time
you
save
content,
they
make
a
new
revision.
You
can
also
compare
them
and
all
that
stuff,
but
it's
just
yeah.
It
just
works,
and
in
case
you
meter
oral
revision.
You
get
it
and
they
think
that's
quite
important
use
case.
D
A
E
A
Yeah
I
think
we
also
have
a
problem
with
like
what
published
means
right
because
other
CMS's
use
publish
for
revisions
and
ours
uses
published
for
node
status
and
the
fact
that
those
two
are
separate
for
Drupal
and
backdropped
gives
them
a
lot
of
power
to
have
things
like
workflows,
but
it
makes
it
really
hard.
You
build
an
interface
that
is
understandable
to
people
who
maybe
don't
want
it
or
don't
need
to
know
what
exists
like
Olaf's
use
case
like
yeah
I.
A
B
B
Know
you
know,
you
know
what
I
I
think
would
be
valuable.
Still
is
that
way
back
when
it
was
mentioned
that
we
could
have
like
the
API
enhancement
that
just
made
it
so
that
when
you
save
a
node
literally,
when
you
call
node
save
that
it
could
save
a
forward
revision
and
that
that
was
possible
through
the
API?
Maybe
just
just
put
that
in
that
would
be
a
nice
start.
B
I
B
A
C
E
A
A
B
E
D
B
E
We
don't
make
the
contribute,
then
it
really
doesn't
accomplish
anything
right.
Well,
I!
Suppose
it's
there
for
custom
quarters,
the
API
is
there,
but
in
theory
we're
just
putting
it
there
for
some
future
can't
rip
module
creator,
anyways
and
it
seems
to
me
like
if
we
don't
do
it
too.
It's
gonna
get
forgotten
about
yeah.
A
B
But
even
then,
even
in
Drupal,
7
and
in
backdrop
now
it's
possible
to
work
around
it.
It's
just
a
really
weird
that
you
would
call
node
save,
and
then
you
have
to
like
manually,
update
the
database
table
to
set
the
act
of
revision
to
something
else,
and
so
just
the
weirdness
right
now
is
that
you
can't
save
a
new
revision
without
it
becoming
the
active
one.
Without
then,
subsequently
going
and
reverting
the
changes
in
the
database.
B
B
E
B
Of
the
existing
tests
is
failing
regarding
the
submitted
byline
on
comments
and
Gregory
had
made
some
pointers
that
we
need
to
do
some
xs/s
checking,
and
so
both
both
of
those
are
valid
comments,
but
other
than
that
this
looks
really
pretty
close.
Like
I
mean
there's
only
one
failing
test
and
the
code
generator
looks
really
good,
so
needs
work,
but
it's
getting
closer.
B
B
E
E
E
B
B
Okay,
well,
that's
it!
Those
are
the
items
that
we've
got
in
the
116
queue
we've
been
taking
off
ones
as
they
are
completed,
so
we'll
knock
off
two
more
here:
the
color
module
child
theme,
support
and
renal
disabled
text
formats,
and
hopefully
we'll
get
this
date
display1
wrapped
up
here
really
soon
as
well.
So
our
list
is
getting
smaller
as
it
should
be,
and
so
that's
very
exciting.
We've
got
less
well,
I,
guess
exactly
two
weeks
remaining
before
code
freeze,
so
yeah
we're
looking
pretty
good
other
than
other
than
revisions
which
we'll
get
something
done.
B
Hopefully
so,
but
that's
it
for
the
update.
Do
you
guys
we
had
some
things
about
initiatives?
Maybe
we
should
just
mention
our
timeline
that
we're
thinking
about
four
initiatives.
Okay,
so
initiatives
are
kind
of
a
larger,
more
formal
way
of
tackling
large
features.
We've
been
working
around
May,
a
more
solid
framework.
Around
initiatives,
Tim
wrote
up
a
blog
post
on
how
initiatives
are
tentatively
going
to
start
occurring.
B
We're
still
working
on
you
know
what
all
of
those
things
mean,
but
to
seed
the
initiative
process,
we're
likely
going
to
start
taking
these
initiatives
that
are
proposed
and
then
some
like
kind
of
formalizing
them
and
submitting
them
for
vote
to
the
PMC.
So
Hazzard
May
7th
is
a
vote,
but
I'm
I'm,
not
clear.
If
that
vote
is
like
when
the
PMC
votes
or
when
you're.