►
From YouTube: Backdrop Weekly March 12th 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).
B
B
A
B
C
B
Am
Jen
Lampton
I'm,
also
from
Oakland
California
and
I
am
working
on
finishing
up
some
module
boards
today
that
are
related
to
an
upgrade.
They
just
did
excited
about
that.
Let's
see
we
have
this
week
a
couple
of
new
contributed
projects
which
is
exciting.
We
have
pretty
calendar
menu,
parole,
abuse,
flipped
table
and
file
filled
paths
which
all
came
out
since
last
Thursday,
there's
a
lot
of
activity
and
contribs.
So
thanks
everybody
for
continue
to
work
on
King
trip
and
with
that
I'd
like
to
turn
over
to
Nate,
to
give
us
an
update
on
dr.
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
Let's
see
next
up,
color
module
does
not
work
with
sub-themes
Joseph
and
this
just
before
the
start
of
the
meeting
issued
3348
kind
of
a
bug
kind
of
a
feature.
That's
sub-themes.
If
you
try
to
inherit
from
a
theme
that
includes
color
support
such
as
basis,
then
the
something
doesn't
work
properly
with
with
color
module,
and
so
those
changes
have
been
marked,
RTB
see,
and
so
that's
super
great
Joseph.
Is
there
anything
you'd
like
to
add
about
that
issue?
I.
D
Also
related
to
sub
things
and
try
out
things.
The
next
issue
is
31
74,
which
is
related
to
install
profiles.
This
issue
makes
it
possible
to
have
sub
install
profiles,
and
this
functionality
is
not
previously
existed
at
all,
and
so
it's
slated
for
116
issued
31
74
just
makes
it
so
that's
the
base
profiles
run
and
then
the
child
profiles
then
run
after
it.
So
in
some
ways
this
makes
it
so
that
profiles
act
more
like
some
other
systems
like
like
themes
but
yeah.
D
C
D
D
C
F
I'm
using
I
personally
think
that's
the
perfect.
What
news
of
it,
because
I
mean
I've,
got
a
minimal
install
for
file
that
does
very
minimal
things
and
standing
one
with
gems.
On
top
of
it.
So
I'd
say
that
on
the
oh
I
saw
Greg
suggesting
to
do
I
just
haven't
gotten
to
get
someone
to
do
this,
but
yeah
I'm
not
trying
to
do
that.
Threading
into
a
pool
of
that
enhances
other
test
handle
that
yeah
be
able
to
make
standard
Iran.
After
those
things.
D
I
might
put
some
reservations
on
that
if
it
makes
it
so
that
we're
doing
some
things
twice
like
updating
a
profile
or
sorry
updating
a
user
role
twice
to
set
two
different
permissions,
or
there
could
be
some
things
that,
if
you're
creating
something
in
a
sub
profile,
you
might
not
expect
something
in
the
base
profile
to
have
already
created
it.
So
yeah
I,
don't
know
if
it
if
it
actually
affects
the
speed
at
which
the
standard
profile
can
install
I
might
want
to
avoid
it.
I
might
also
be
concerned
that
it's
more
places
to
look.
D
D
D
A
A
C
A
Okay,
my
other
comment
on
this
issue
would
be
that
it
in
theory,
is
pretty
close
to
being
finished,
but
only
four
people
have
liked
commented
on
it,
since
the
poor
request,
including
like
Jen
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
know
if
you've
actually
looked
at
it
yet,
and
so
it
might
be
really
good
if
you
were
able
to
look
at
it,
make
sure
that
you
so
that
it
that
doesn't
flare
up
at
the
last
second,
and
if
you
were
to
look
at
it
soon.
Okay,.
C
A
B
C
C
C
D
So
yeah,
so
we
had
some
concerns
that
the
way
it
had
been
implemented
was
that
it
was
all
JavaScript
implementation,
like,
on
top
of
the
current
form,
that
it
was
still
one
big
form
on
one
page,
but
using
javascript
to
take
out
sections
of
the
form
and
then
put
them
in
dialogues.
Introduced
kind
of
weird
problems
like
the
validation
is
server-side,
but
you
would
submit
the
dialogue
and
the
dialogue
would
close,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
there
were
any
validation
errors
and
then
only
when
you
submitted
the
form
where
the
validation
actually
fired.
D
D
Like
a
temporary
text
format
in
the
temp
store
table,
sorry,
not
the
state
table,
so
temp
store
is
where
temporary
views
and
temporary
layouts
are
stored
and
then
there's
one
big
validation
that
happens
on
the
whole
thing
before
the
whole
thing
is
saved,
so
I
think
that's
the
approach
that
we're
going
to
take
basically
imitating
those
other
two
systems
and
applying
it
to
text
formats.
That
sound
is
comprehensive.
C
Yes
and
then
there
were
a
few
satellite
issues
around
that
as
in,
for
example,
what
comes
to
mind
is
that
if
you
disable
certain
tags,
we
have
a
filter
that
allows
you
to
specify
which
tags
then
the
respective
buttons
for
it.
They
shouldn't
appear
in
the
form,
and
it's
it's
more
of
a
UX
workflow
issue
where
people
disable
things
and
then
they
show
up
as
buttons
still
so.
D
We
should
make
it
so
that,
when
you
drag
in
a
button
in
to
say,
seek
editor's
toolbar,
there
should
be
a
message
on
the
form
that
you're
configuring,
which
I
guess
now
would
be
inside
of
a
dialog.
That
says
that
the
strong
tag
is
going
to
be
added
but
interesting,
because
there
it's
it's,
it's
not
in
the
same
page
anymore,
you
we
would
update
it
like
in
the
temp
store
version
like
at
the
time
you
submit
the
dialog.
So.
C
C
I
wasn't
expecting
so
so
as
a
as
a
site
builder
I
expected
because
I
removed
the
tag
from
that
text
format.
The
button
shouldn't
be
there
at
all,
because
then
I
don't
want
accidentally
to
pull
that
button
there.
But
then
you
bring
a
nice
point
out
that
if
you
put
the
button
then
you
would
also
expect
the
tag
to
be
automatically
added,
maybe
with
a
message
saying
that
this
has
been
done,
because
it's
done
magically
right.
D
D
C
C
D
Yeah
I
think
that
it
would
be
yeah
I,
don't
know,
there's
a
two
side,
so
I
think
that
it
would
be
easier
for
a
user
to
allow
the
button
to
be
draggable
and
automatically
enable
it
for
them.
Rather
than
make
them
close.
The
dialog
go
someplace
else
open
another
dialog
add
the
strong
tag
then
go
back
to
where
they
were
to
drag
the
button.
In
so.
D
C
D
D
F
D
C
And
this
is
the
one
that
I
was
wrongfully
so
like
giving
an
update
before
so
wait.
That
sad
is
that
document
has
filed
a
pull
request
based
off
of
Jane's
last
request,
where
his
she's
intimated
things
in
a
way
that
doesn't
affect
the
the
available
were
authorized,
that
she
saved
text
formats.
The
way
that
the
previous
request
was
doing
it,
it
just
needs
testing
in
contrary.
That's
where
it's
at
so
the
problem
that
we
had
back
in
one
in
September
in
114.
D
A
D
A
Think
I'm
just
gonna
say
that
the
next
step
was
that,
like
Jenna
and
Gregory
and
I
were
going
to
try
and
do
a
quick
conference
call
to
talk
about
some
of
the
comments.
Although
I
can
say
one
of
the
things
that
might
have
come
up
since
since
we
last
talked
about
this,
is
that
I
had
been
working
under
the
impression
that
that
the
underlying
goal
here
was
to
make
it
possible
for
contribs
to
have
more
flexibility
in
declaring
sort
of
different
states
on
revisions
and
doc.
A
Wilma
clarified
for
me
that
in
fact,
the
current
PR
doesn't
address
that
issue
at
all.
It's
addressing
that
a
UI
thing,
and
he
recommends
that
we
kind
of
break
this
apart
into
two
issues.
So
one
of
them.
That
is
what
we're
currently
addressing
and
the
other
one
is
what
the
original
issue
of
the
whole
issue
you
know
was
talked
about
so
within
the
next
week.
Hopefully
we
will
have
done
that
sure.
C
Basically,
yeah,
basically
the
current
pull
request.
Well,
it
does.
It
allows
for
forward
revisions
the
the
thing
that
was
initially
expected
to
be
done,
but
now
we
have
a
nice
bit
of
a
separate
issue
is
to
be
able
to
attach
States
to
those
revisions.
I
should
say,
as
in
make
forward
revisions
beyond
the
review
or
whatever,
whether
that
is
on
porn
in
court
or
we
solve
like
build
a
foundation,
so
that
country
can
do
that.
F
D
D
C
Actually,
there's
a
few
things
so,
with
with
regards
to
PMC
decisions
or
blog
posts.
I
know
that
this
is
not
the
meeting
for
it,
but
there's
a
few
things
and
announcements
that
are
pending.
We
already
have
the
content
like
with
regards
to
new
members
or
people
stepping
down
I'm,
not
sure
like
so
we
posted
a
blog
post
last
week.