►
From YouTube: 2021/08/26 - Backdrop Weekly Dev
Description
Agenda: https://bit.ly/2UOEtke
A
All
right
we
are
live
today
is
thursday
august
26th,
and
this
is
our
weekly
developer
check
in
before
we
get
going
on
all
the
exciting
things
in
the
agenda.
We're
gonna
do
a
quick
round
of
introductions.
I
am
jen
lampton
joining
from
oakland
california.
I'm
really
excited
about
everybody's
enthusiasm
and
the
huge
flurry
of
work
we've
seen
lately
in
the
issue
too.
So
thank
you,
everybody
for
all
of
that.
Let's
turn
it
over
to
olaf.
B
D
Luke
hi
I'm
mccormick
in
san
ramon.
California,
I've
been
doing
some
more
coding
recently,
so
so
maybe
I'll
I'll
try
to
chip
in
with
something
sometime
soon.
Let
me
throw
it
over
to
justin.
F
G
Greg
yep
did
you
say:
greg
yep,
yep
great
greg.
I'm
joining
from
greece
really
excited
about
working
in
the
issues.
I
haven't
been
doing
that
for
a
long
time
and
it's
good
to
be
back
and
I'll
pass
it
to
andy.
H
All
right,
andy
chilling
forward.
I
helped
her.
On
the
backdrop.
Sorry
I
wasn't
listening,
I'm
not.
I.
J
Yeah
and
I'm
nate,
I'm
a
quick
sketch
on
the
internet
from
oakland,
california.
I
think
that's
the
first
time
we've
made
a
full
circuit
without
accidentally
calling
on
someone
twice
so
with
nine
people.
It's
great
all
right,
let's
see
actually
jen
I'll
pass
it
back
to
you
for
a
minute
and
before
we
get
into
some
of
the
other
items.
A
Sure
so
we
have
a
couple
of
new
contributed
projects
this
week,
field,
visibility,
condition
and
spam
bot
andy.
Thank
you
for
working
on
spambot,
I'm
very
excited
to
get
that
on
backdrop
cms.org
and
then,
let's
see
there
are
a
couple
of
new
applications
in
the
contribute
which
I
just
wanted
to
point
out.
It's
very
exciting:
we've
had
a
bunch
of
people
have
been
pretty
enthusiastically
moving
stuff
over.
So
all
right
back
to
you,
nate.
J
Okay,
well
a
couple
of
meetings
ago
we
started
doing
a
new
policy
where
we
have
a
forum
post
each
week
that
is
posted
to
forum
or
sorry
yeah
forum,
dot
back
forum.backdropcms.org
and
in
there
we
solicit
ideas
for
discussion
for
the
next
weekly
meeting,
and
there
was
a
couple
of
posts
in
there
that
listed
a
number
of
items
for
discussion.
J
Some
of
them
got
discussed
in
the
previous
meeting,
so
I'll
just
note
what
those
ones
were
and
if
you
are
interested
in
that
discussion,
you
can
go
back
and
watch
the
the
outreach
meeting
that
was
prior
to
this
one.
First,
one
is
better
default
positions
for
the
breadcrumbs
on
the
installation
of
new
sites
issue
41
13.
that
was
discussed
in
the
previous
meeting.
J
And
I
think
yeah,
the
question
that
we
have
here
is:
what
can
we
do
for
the
next
release
and
how
can
we
promote
it
as
part
of
the
next
release,
so
config
recipes?
J
The
meta
issue
is
issue
3763,
but
I
think,
as
far
as
what
we're
talking
about
for
1.20
is
this
blocking
issue
issue
3224,
which
is
the
mod
the
module
config
needs
to
be
synced
on
sorry,
the
config
needs
to
be
synced
on
module
install
and
that
issue
we've
been
working
on
this
past
week,
drawmont
has
filed
a
number
of
updated
pull
requests
incorporated
some
feedback.
We've
got
some
reviews
on
the
issue
and
let
me
check
what
the
very
latest
of
that
issue
is
yeah.
J
It
looks
like
most
recently
tim,
you
and
andy
have
been
going
back
and
forth.
Maybe
one
of
you
might
actually
be
the
better
person
to
give
the
update
on
the
status
of
that
issue.
I'll
I'll
put
forward.
You
tim
first
as
as
a
candidate
sure.
F
Basically,
I
think
the
the
problem
was
that
there
was
a
bug
in
core
that,
when
you
enabled
a
module
that
had
config
files,
that
the
database
tables
weren't
being
made
created,
andy
created
a
pull
request
which
solves
that,
and
I
created
some
sample
simple,
like
config
recipes
that
basically
just
adds
like
a
content,
type
and
a
view
and
have
tested
it
and
it
seems
to
work
so
in
theory,
you
know
just
by
fixing
that
other
bug
which
already
existed,
we've
made
something
of
a
config
recipe
possible,
but
the
next
decision,
but
that,
but
we
never
really
decided
what
we
wanted.
F
Config
recipes
to
look
like
so
now
we
kind
of
got
to
decide.
If,
if
this
is
really
what
config
recipes
should
be
and
or
you
know,
how
do
we
manage
them?
How
do
you
know
do
we
have
a
special
a
new?
Do
we
have
a
new
project,
type
on
backdrop.org
and
blah
blah
blah?
And
I
don't
I
don't
know
what,
if
we'll
be
able
to
make
those
decisions
in
the
next
couple,
you
know
two
or
three
weeks
before
release.
H
J
Yeah
there's
a
technical
concern
in
there
that
that
the
latest
pull
request
has
made
some
comments
on
about
what
happens
when
you
disable
and
uninstall
the
module
like
what
happens
to
the
config.
J
The
field
related
config
when
a
module
is
uninstalled
and
the
current
setup
is
that
we
have
a
an
exception
in
the
not
maybe
not
an
exception,
but
we're
changing
the
way.
The
field
sync
config
sync
works
that
if
the
database
tables
are
already
there,
it
just
ignores
them
rather
than
failing
to
install
it
just
says:
oh,
I
don't
need
to
install
the
field
config
because
or
the
field
database
tables
because
they're
already
there,
and
so
that's
kind
of
a
keep
work
around
to
make
it.
J
G
J
Yeah,
so
one
thing
is
that
the
fields
module
still
owns
the
like.
Let's
say
you
have
a
module
that
creates
a
new
text
field
or
a
new
date
field.
The
text
module
and
the
date
module
respectively,
are
still
owning
that
data
and
the
field
is
still
there
and
the
content
type
is
still
there.
Even
though
the
feature
module
is
uninstalled,
so
it's
actually
still
maintained
and
still
updated,
and
the
schema
is
still
kept
track
of
because
another
module
actually
owns
that
content
type.
J
So
it
kind
of
is
maybe
a
little
bit
strange
that
the
uninstall
of
the
module
doesn't
clean
up.
The
content
type
doesn't
clean
up
the
fields
which
is
good
from
a
maintenance
perspective
that
can
continue
working
on
the
site
and
it's
good
from
a
data
preservation
standpoint.
But
it's
a
little
bit
strange
that
uninstalling
the
module
doesn't
actually
remove
everything
that
it
created
so.
A
With
other
things,
we're
doing
in
backdrop,
though,
where
like
we
require
that
you
delete
your
fields
manually
rather
than
doing
like
a
config,
sync
removes
them.
So
I
think
there's
some
stuff
that
you
know
we
tend
to
air
in
in
the
direction
of
like
if
you
want
to
delete
it,
delete
it
yourself,
and
I
think
that
lines
up
with
this
proposal.
J
Yeah,
so
I
guess
maybe
this
doesn't
sound
too
bad,
the
the
all
of
that
actually
will
continue
working
exactly
as
it
is
right
now
without
this
one
fix
that
andy
put
in
the
fix
makes
it
so
that
when
you
turn
on
the
module
a
second
time,
it
doesn't
throw
a
fatal
error
or
it
doesn't
fail
to
install
because
because
otherwise
it
would
try
to
import
the
field
config
and
see
that
the
table
is
already
there
and
it
would
just
bail
out
and
say
I
can't
create
this
field,
because
the
table
already
exists.
C
And
so
it
was
failing
to
create
the
table.
Well,
actually,
actually
the
original
behavior
before
I
started
working
on
it
was
that
it
just
didn't.
Do
it
at
all,
because
I
needed
it
needs
to
run
a
hook
to
create
the
tables.
H
H
So
what
what
was
happening
is
it
was
saving
the
config
and
then,
when
you
ran
config
create,
was
looking
and
seeing
that
the
field
config
already
exists,
so
it
was
stopping
so
right
now
a
switch
swapped
it
so
that
you'll
do
the
config
create
first
and
then
save
the
field.
I
think
that's
what
the
config
import
does.
So
I
just
copy
that
from
there.
Okay,
so
that
fixed
the
error
that
you
had
there
before.
J
Yeah
cool
yeah
and
we
do
have
test
coverage
now,
thanks
for
for
writing
that
and
adding
that
into
the
pull
request,
and
it
seems,
like
tim
you've,
confirmed
that
it
all
seems
to
be
working
as
expected
as
well.
So
it
seems
like
overall,
really
closing
in
on
this
fix
to
make
this
possible.
I
think
the
only
thing
that
we
need
to
agree
upon
is
you
know
if
the
compromises
that
we've
put
in
place
are
acceptable
for
the
time
being,
we
can
change.
J
We
can
probably
change
the
way
that
this
works
in
the
future.
This
all
is
like
edge
case
handling
of
uninstalling,
a
module
completely
and
then
reinstalling
it
like.
If
that's
the
scenario
that
is
holding
this
whole
thing
up,
it
probably
shouldn't
be
holding
it
up,
because
that's
it's
just
a
strange
scenario.
J
In
the
first
place,
I
think
we'd
all
prefer
to
have
this
capability,
even
if
it
has
this
edge
case
scenario,
because
right
now,
like
you,
can't
get
into
that
education
area,
because
the
field
config
just
doesn't
do
anything
right
now,
so
we're
definitely
removing
a
lot
of
the
weirdness
and
getting
it
closer
to
where
we
want
to
be
in
this
change.
J
So
yeah,
that's
looking
really
good,
I
think
maybe
we'll
move
on
from
that.
I
mean
there's
other
things
around
config
recipe
still
like
what
we
do
on
backdrop
cms.org,
how
we
surface
them,
how
we
categorize
them
and
all
of
that,
but
I
think
that
that
may
be
a
discussion
for
after
we
get
in
this.
This
main
underlying
issue.
A
A
C
G
Before
we
move
on
to
the
other
issues,
can
we
discuss
two
issues
that
are
config
related?
So
we
don't
go
off
that
topic.
One
of
them
is
luke's.
First
attempt
from
what
I
can
remember
to
to
file
a
pull
request,
so
the
issue
is
5146
and
it
solves
a
usability
problem
when
people
try
to
import
config
and
then
they
get
multiple
errors,
I
think
it's
a
great
usability
fix
and
it's
been
rtbc'd.
J
That's
a
great
fix
this.
This
drives
me
nuts,
honestly,
like
the
you
need
to
turn
on
this
module,
and
then
you
turn
on
that
module,
and
then
you
try
to
import
config
it's
like
now.
You
need
to
turn
on
this
module
yeah
yeah.
That
would
be.
That
would
be
a
great
enhancement.
It
looks
like
I
haven't
code
reviewed
this,
but
it
looks
like
someone
else.
Has
it's
marked
rtbc
already
yeah
this?
This
is
great.
It's
only
been
open
for
two
weeks,
so
yeah
great
work
on
the
collaboration
here.
G
Yeah
great
great
thanks
for
holding
there,
the
fourth
look
and
persisting
through
the
multiple
code,
reviews
and
requests
for
changes
all
the
time
but
yeah
and
then
the
other
issue
is
5163,
which
you
have
added
to
the
the
bottom
of
the
list,
which
is
it
solves
another
similar
issue
and
we
actually
have
a
few
other
issues
in
the
queue
that
might
be
solved.
Because
of
that.
G
So
another
thing
is
that
if,
if
you
try
to
move
config
from
one
environment
to
another
and
the
target
environment
doesn't
have
a
module
enabled,
it
will
start
complaining
and
throwing
errors.
So
I
thought
that
this
this
issue
doesn't
exist
in
drupal,
drupal,
8
and
beyond,
because
they
actually
have
they
track,
whether
modules
are
enabled
or
not
in
their
config,
and
they
have
this
core
extensions
yaml
file,
which
finds
modules
there
and
basically
enables
them
for
you.
G
So
the
current
pull
request.
What
it
does.
It
basically
audits
it's
a
there's,
an
install,
an
update,
hook
that
basically
audits
the
site
and
creates
a
json
file
with
every
module
that
is
installed,
enabled
or
disabled
sorry.
G
And
then
the
bit
that
is
left
to
be
done
is
on
the
target
system
when
a
comparison
is
done
between
what's
in
the
system
table
and
what's
on
that
file,
and
then,
if
there's
modules
that
have
not
been
enabled,
it
enables
them
for
you,
the
question
there
remains.
When
do
I
do
that?
G
G
Yeah
so
yeah
before
we
go
there,
because
you
mentioned
that
there's
two
workflows.
I
know
that
most
of
you,
like
the
most
of
the
advanced
developers,
they
have
a
workflow
where
they
sync
the
staging
with
the
active
directory
this.
This
basically
deals
with
the
simplest
situation,
where
there's
only
a
person
that
uploads
their
their
config
files
into
active
and
expect
things
to
work.
G
If
the
configuration
included
the
list
of
modules
that
were
there
in
the
source
environment
and
enable
them,
then
you
wouldn't
have
those
arrows
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
achieve.
C
G
Yeah,
I
guess
yeah
partial
import.
I
haven't
thought
about
it
yeah,
unless
we
have,
we
have
it
so
that
doing
a
partial
import,
always
checks
for
that
specific
file.
J
Yeah
kind
of
the
only
protection
we
have
in
here
is
that
when
you
import
config,
some
module
has
to
claim
that
config,
and
so,
if
a
no
module
claims
the
config
at
all,
then
the
config
import
completely
fails.
J
So
if
that
module
has
a
settings
page,
you
know
it
saves
one
value,
then
the
config
import
would
fail
entirely
because
there's
no
module
available
to
validate
that
that
config
is
okay,
so
order
of
operations
greg
you'd
have
to
definitely
turn
on
all
of
the
needed
modules
in
like
a
pre-phase
and
then
do
another
step
to
actually
run
the
validation
on
everything
and
turning
on
a
module.
I
think
that
would
it
would
need
to
be
done
as
a
separate
step
like
when
you
run
the
config
import.
J
It
would
need
to
like
make
one
request,
turn
on
the
modules,
and
then
we
need
to
start
over
a
second
request
which
we
already
have
like.
You
know
it's
imported
via
batch
api,
so
that
would
work
fine.
It
would
just
need
a
preliminary
step
to
turn
on
the
modules
first
and
then
in
the
second
and
subsequent
requests
start
start
importing.
The
config.
G
If
you
so
choose
it
could
download
it
if
it's
contrib
and
enable
it
so
there's
a
lot
of
possibilities
to
do
not
throw
errors.
Rather
than
throwing
errors,
throwing
messages
and
saying
hey.
This
module
is
sort
of
like
enabling
config,
but
it
doesn't
exist
in
the
cloud
base.
Would
you
like
to
download
it
downloads
it,
for
you
enables
it
inputs,
config,
so
basically
yeah?
That's
the
functionality
that
I
want
to
implement.
Now
it
seems
simple,
but
I
don't
know
the
entry
point
like.
Where
would
I
be
doing
that
only
during
config
config
input
or.
C
Probably
yeah,
so
we
were
talking
about
having
some
way
of
keeping
track,
of
which
config
files
depend
on
which
modules
and
jen
said
that
she
actually
puts
on
underscore
modules
in
her
config
files
already.
C
G
A
Yeah
there
is
an
issue
for
that
already.
I
don't
think
it
includes
a
change
to
all,
but
I'm
not
even
sure,
there's
a
pull
request,
but
it
doesn't.
I
know
it
doesn't
include
all
of
the
core
config
stuff,
but
this
goes
even
crazier,
because
all
of
the
can
this
would
apply
to
all
of
config
and
contrib
too,
and
so
we
can
do
it
in
core.
A
C
Right,
if
you
have,
if
you
have,
if
you
create
a
new
config
file
through
code
and
then
save
it,
it
will
automatically
fill
in
for
you
that
can
underscore
config
name
parameter
and
put
it
in
your
config
file.
So
we
can
do
the
same
thing
with
module,
which
is
yeah
just
basically,
when
you
save
a
new
config
file
at
any
time
check
what
module
owns
it
and
put
that
in
there
for
them.
A
J
Now,
the
only
way
to
do
it
is
to
run
the
validation
and
see
what
validation
errors
come
back
and
say.
Oh,
these
modules
are
missing
and
it
would
be
much
better
if
we
could
determine
that
information
without
asking
without
running
any
php
code,
like
from
individual
modules,
we
could
just
look
at
the
files
and
say
what
what
are
the
modules
needed
here?
Yeah.
J
C
J
Yeah,
well
that
that
is
considered
acceptable
too,
because
we
have
to
do
this
all
the
time
with
module
updates
that
sometimes
the
config
needs
to
change
in
the
files,
and
we
have
update
hooks
that
change
what's
stored
in
the
config,
and
so
it
is
expected
actually
that
after
you
run
update.php,
you
probably
will
have
config
changes
on
production
so
that
that's
the
way
that
we
have
had
to
handle
this
in
the
past
already.
So
it
would
be
totally
acceptable
if
we
wanted
to
accelerate
that
process
to
have
an
update
hook.
J
G
G
J
Every
module
already
has
to
claim
a
config
file
if
it's
in
the
active
directory,
it's
already
claimed
by
a
module,
and
we
can
do
that
by
using
hook,
config
info
and
like
finding
like
what
module
claims
each
config
file
and
then
populating
that
value.
G
A
G
A
Also,
while
we're
talking
about
this,
we
just
talked
about
config
recipes
and
now
we're
talking
about
issues
with
config
syncing.
There
was
an
issue
that
was
talking
about
like
how
do
we
handle
enabling
a
recipe
that
imports
config
for
a
module?
That's
not
enabled
and
greg.
I
think
you
said
you
thought
that
was
okay,
but
because
it
wouldn't
do
anything
until
the
module
is
enabled.
A
But
now
we're
gonna
run
to
this
problem,
where,
if
you
go
to
do
a
config
sync
on
that
site,
the
sync
will
fail,
because
the
sync
won't
work
unless
the
module's
enabled.
So
I
think,
whatever
solution
we
end
up
arriving
on
for
doing
a
config
import
enables
modules.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
also
we
can
handle
that
for
recipes.
A
I
don't
know
that
needs
to
be
like
the
recipes
need
to
be
blocked
on
that,
but
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out,
like
maybe
don't
allow
imports
if
the
modules
not
enabled
or
enable
the
module
automatically
for
the
recipes.
C
Well,
you
could,
you
could
have
your
recipe
just
depend
on
the
other
module
yeah,
and
then
that
would
fix
that
problem.
But
if
you
so,
if
you
have
a
config
file
and
in
your
module
and
you
enable
that
module,
it
will
check
if
there's
already
a
config
file
with
the
same
name
and
if
there
is
it
will
just
not
import
that
file.
G
A
F
Meet
you,
I
think
you're
muted
yeah.
I
know
I
I
it's
why
I
raised
this
discussion
that
we
have
laryn
is
also
is
working
on
sort
of
a
side
project
which
is
specifically
done
designed
around
paragraphs,
but
it's
a
kind
of
a
recipes
thing
that
doesn't
treat
them
as
modules.
F
There
are
some
pros
to
that
and
cons
to
that
right
and
in
my
fear,
you
know,
I
feel
like
we
can't
announce
a
config
feature
that
assumes
that
configs
are
module
modules
until
we've
decided
for
sure
that's
the
route
we
want
to
go,
because
I
don't
think
we
can
just
change
what
configs
are.
Config
recipes
are
six
months
from
now
right
that,
whatever
that
decision
we
make
now
is.
A
F
Right
config
recipes
work.
We
have
them,
you
know
as
soon
as
this
patch
goes
in.
The
question
is
whether
or
not
we
tell
everybody
hey.
We
have
this
thing
called
config
recipes,
and
this
is
what
they
look
like
right.
If
we
do
that,
then
it
might
be
hard
to
change
that
later.
That
doesn't
mean
we
can't
go
ahead
and
use
them.
D
That's
my
technical
from
from
a
usability
perspective.
Just
kind
of
you
know
throwing
out
my
impressions.
I,
the
the
functionality
of
config
recipes
is,
is
so
distinct
from
the
general
functionality
of
modules
that
I
think
it's
a
mistake
to
lump
it
with
that,
like.
I
think
I
think
that
was
a
misfeature
of
triple
seven's
modules,
that
of
drupal
7's
features
rather
module
that
it
dumped
in
with
modules
and
which
is
confusing
and
kind
of
unnecessary.
D
In
there
I
mean
they're,
not
modules,
so
like
they're,
not
they're,
not
really
doing
the
things
that
others,
so
so,
even
even
if
for
implementation
purposes,
if
it
happens
to
be
they
actually,
you
know
really
are
modules.
I
I
think
from
the
perspective
of
the
users,
it
would
be
good
for
us
to
to
actually
hide
that
and
keep
them
as
a
separate
thing
and
and
not
not
let
anyone
have
to
worry
about
them
being
modules
like
unless
they're.
G
J
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
luke
as
long
as
I
think
we
could
do
that
as
long
as
if,
if
recipes
became
their
own
thing,
they
couldn't
execute
php
code
and
I
think
that
you
could
have
a
module
that
included.
J
You
know
a
lot
of
functionality
and
it
would
have
custom
hooks
and
things
like
that,
and
then
that's
really
a
module
that
has
a
bunch
of
pre-baked
functionality
and
that's
just
something
you
can
do
in
backdrop
more
easily
now.
But
if
we
take
this
other
route,
then
recipes
would
really
be.
There's
no
module
file.
There's
no
php
code
in
it,
because
if
it
is
executing
php
code,
then
it's
a
module
like.
I
think
that
that
would
be
kind
of
the
defining
line.
Is
it
php
code
if
it
adds
functionality?
It's
a
module.
A
G
D
G
F
D
J
Yeah
all
right,
let's
see
next
up
jen
we've
got
this.
Oh
boy,
we're
gonna
have
a
hard
time
fitting
everything
user.
Compare
visibility,
rule
issue
4829,
I
don't
know
anything
about
this.
Can
you
give
us
an
intro.
A
Yeah,
so
this
is
a
visibility
rule
that
was
in
panels
that
didn't
make
it
into
backdrop.
It
allows
you
to
basically
it's
something
different
like
when
I'm
looking
at
my
own
user
page
versus
when
I'm
looking
at
someone
else's
user
page,
so
it
compares
the
person
who's
looking
versus
the
person
you're.
A
Looking
at,
though
that
use
case
is
rather
simple,
the
user
interface
for
it
is
very
convoluted
because
it's
like
user
one
user
two
and
it
doesn't
really
help
anyone
know
what
these
entities
are,
that
you're
comparing
and
so
I
thought
tim
was
testing
it
he's
like.
I
don't
really
understand,
what's
going
on
here,
which
is
fair,
but
I
thought
that
now
that
we
have
relationships
and
layouts,
I
might
be
able
to
come
up
with
a
more
useful
example,
because
we
can
use
the
author.
A
And
user
three,
rather
than
you
know,
just
the
two
that
my
your
own
youtube
profile.
Other
users
profile
example-
and
I
thought
maybe
if
we
had
more
examples
of
users
to
compare,
we
could
maybe
come
up
with
some
better
terminology
around
how
to
explain
to
people
what
the
things
that
they
are
they're
choosing.
So
it's
I
think
it
works
as
it
is
now,
but
the
user
interface
is
not
intuitive,
and
so
I'm
hoping
to
come
up
with
a
better
example.
That'll
help
us
change
the
text,
but
I
think
functionality
wise
it
works.
A
I
don't
know
if
it
has
a
test
with
it
or
not.
If
it
had
one
in
panels,
it
might
have
one
in
the
pull
request.
But
I'll
have
to
remind
myself.
G
A
A
Tim
also
recommended,
rather
than
asking
user
one
user
two,
but
we
could
provide,
is
a
very
limited
feature.
That's
like
compare
currently
logged
in
user
with
profile
being
viewed,
but
that
would
limit
the
functionality
to
only
that
one
use
case,
whereas
right
now,
when
you
have
the
ability
to
use
user
one
user
two,
you
can
also
compare
to
like
a
node
author
or
any
of
the
other
users
that
we
can
have
in
core
like
via
relationships.
A
G
G
G
H
Yeah,
I
was
sorry
I'm
in
and
out
of
the
conversation,
sorry,
but
why
isn't
this
good
enough
for
contrib?
Is
this
something
that
should
be
in
core?
I
don't
imagine
that
that
would
be
a
very
common
something
that
would
use
commonly
well.
Why
did
we
think
that
it's
something
that
should
be
incorporated.
A
It
is
pretty
common
that
you
want
to
show
like,
especially
if
you
take
into
scenario
like
the
dashboard
right
like
a
lot
of
times.
People
have
their
own
dashboard,
but
you
might
want
to
see
like
okay.
These
are
the
eight
things
that
I'm
responsible
for
is
editing,
content
or
whatever.
But
then
I
want
to
go
see
what's
on
like
bob's
dashboard,
and
I
don't
want
to
see
my
tasks
on
bob
dashboard.
A
I
want
to
see
box
tests
on
bob's
dashboard,
and
so
you
have
to
have
some
way
to
tell
those
pages
apart,
so
it
works
for
dashboards.
It
works
for
like
actual
profile
pages.
It
works
for
anything
where
you
have
a
website
with
a
lot
of
authenticated
users
with
higher
levels
of
access,
it
becomes
pretty
common,
the
it
was
in
panels
and,
I
think,
just
overlooked,
like
a
lot
of
our
visibility.
Conditions
are
missing.
A
There's
like
a
taxonomy
term,
though
it's
missing
a
user,
which
is
all
the
entities
that
aren't
nodes,
just
didn't
make
it
into
layouts
when
layouts
went
in,
and
so
I
think
I
think
it's
a
valid
use
case,
the
edge
casey
ones
where
you
need
the
really
complicated
interface
aren't
so
that,
I
think,
is
another
thing
where
it's
like
it's.
A
Maybe
we
just
wanted
another
thing,
good
question,
for
everyone,
too,
is:
where
do
we
put
all
the
stuff
that
was
in
panels
that
didn't
make
it
into
like?
Should
we
just
have
a
drip
module
called
panels
that
has
all
of
this
stuff
that
was
left
out
like
because
we
and
then
we
could
have
the
like?
Oh
did
you
need
the
extra
features
from
panels
install
the
panels
module
for
background
layouts.
A
J
A
D
I
mean
people,
don't
customize
user
interface,
administrative
user
interfaces,
but
I
mean
they
should
like
that.
That's
actually
an
important
thing,
so
it'd
be
nice
to
have
that
as
as
an
option.
C
J
C
B
A
J
A
couple
minutes
to
get
through
it
if
it's
okay,
I'll
skip
the
next
one,
but
I'll
make
a
note
of
it
that
there's
there's
an
issue.
That's
garnering
some
discussion
about
changing
the
default
homepage
from
slash
user
to
slash
node.
If
the
user
removes
the
default
home
page,
which
is
home,
that
issue
is
33.43.
A
J
J
J
Okay,
let's
see
oh
boy,
there's
so
many
things,
a
details.
A
J
Element
issue:
50
90.:
oh
that
one
was
discussed
in
the
previous
meeting.
A
G
J
G
G
Yes,
let's
do
that.
Having
said
that,
there's
there's
developing
countries
that
are
still
stuck
on
windows,
xp
and
government
agencies
that
are
stuck
in
windows,
xp
so
or
schools,
or
things
like
that.
So
just
putting
it
out
there.
C
C
G
J
J
This
issue
has
been
coming
along
nicely:
indigo
zella
and
the
author
of
the
pull
requests
and
then
it's
brad,
brad
bulger
have
been
not
knocking
back
and
forth
a
lot
of
suggested
approaches,
and
I
think
that
they've
landed
on
one.
That
seems
to
fix
everything.
J
So
the
latest
pull
request
looks
pretty
promising
from
brad
there,
and
so
I'm
hoping
that
that
will
reach
conclusion
here
shortly.
B
It's
a
bit
hard
for
me
because
it's
a
very
technical
issue,
but
it's
a
much
more
smaller
pr
for
a
three-liner,
and
so
I
can
aside
from
the
comment
of
indicator,
she
says
it
only
covers
the
problem.
Backdrop
root
is
a
sibling
and
doesn't
bother
any
other
siblings,
and
this
might
not
fix
all
possible
problems
with
siblings.
But
fix
is
the
one
we're
struggling
with
so
long
now.
B
J
A
J
A
J
It's
interesting
that
indigosalis
is
so
much
simpler
and
solves
the
primary
use
case
just
as
well.
I
think
maybe
I'll
need
to
read
this
issue
and
see
if
brad
and
indigozella
can
reach
a
compromise
or
conclusion
on
their
own,
because
I
would
love
it
if
one
or
the
other
would
say,
let's
go
with
your
pull
request
if
they
both.
A
J
The
problem
in
different
ways,
because
I
don't
really
have
a
preference
for
implementation,
one
versus
the
other-
I
don't
think
as
long
as
they
both
can
be
confirmed
and
tested
that
they
work.
So
so
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
see
is
one
of
the
other
say:
let's
use
your
pull
request.
F
I'll
just
indigozella
asked
to
put
this
on
the
agenda
and
I
think
her
hope
was
that
she
would
get
direct
core
committer
feedback.
J
Yeah
well,
I
need
to
well
the
indigo.
Zealous
is
a
lot
easier
to
understand,
and
so
I
can
provide
the
feedback
on
that
right
away.
Saying
oh
yeah
that
looks
like
it
would
be
adequate
and
if
brad
is
happy
with
that,
then
let's
go
with
indigozales,
because
it's
really
easy
to
understand.
J
However,
brad's
I
think
is
more
comprehensive
and
that
it
deals
with
sim
links
everywhere,
nested
anywhere
within
the
backdrop
route,
and
so
that
may
be
preferable
because
it's
a
comprehensive
fix,
but
I
haven't,
haven't,
tested
and
read
through
his
implementation,
because
it's
a
little
bit
more
gnarly
to
wrap
your
head
around.
So
I
think
brad's
would
be
preferable
if
we
can
get
it
confirmed
and
working
confirmed
and
tested
if
it's
a
comprehensive
fix
and
if
we
just
want
something
that
fixes
the
immediate
problem,
then
let's
go
with
indigozales.
J
B
J
Yeah
and
we
can
have
zen
ci-
confirm
the
problem
by
updating
the
does
nci
script.
That
runs
the
test.
I
think
brad's
actually
does
change
this
nci
script
into
indigo.
Zealous
does
not,
but
we
could
temporarily
change
the
script
either
way
that
is
set
up
in
in
brad's
pull
request
to
check
both
ways
that
that
are
confirmed
or
you
can
set
it
up
locally,
but
it
definitely
is
confusing.
J
J
We
have
github
actions,
that's
continuing
to
come
along
we'll
skip
over
that,
though,
for
today,
one
issue
that
I
still
would
love
to
see
in
1.20
is
the
media
library
dialogue
we're
still
trying
to
get
that
file.
Name
filter,
exposed
issue
3293..
J
I
think
we
have
the
time
we
have
the
approaches
that
are
we.
We
have
gotten
really
close
to
working
in
this
one.
So
I
think
that
3293
is
a
matter
of
checking
the
approaches.
We
have
resolving
any
last
issues
with
it
and
then
deciding
like
you
know
which
approach
we
want
to
do.
I
think
andy,
you
posted
a
comment,
saying
hey.
We
had
one
that
was
working
a
long
time
ago.
J
Maybe
we
should
just
go
with
that,
even
though
it's
not
like
a
comprehensive
fix-
and
I
think
that's
you
know
that
that's
an
option.
That's
on
the
table
too.
I'd
love
to
see
all
views
filters
working
if
we
can
get
there
because
it
seems
like
we're
really
close,
but
if
we
needed
to
compromise
for
120
and
use
the
kind
of
halfway
fix
be
kind
of
okay.
With
that.
H
Yeah
that
that
comment
was
me
giving
up.
Essentially
I
I
spent
a
while
looking
at
that
and
the
jquery
that
jquery
has
never
been
my
friend
in
the
first
place,
but
I
think
it's
it's
really
hard
to
try
and
figure
this
thing
out
that
I
give
up.
So
looking
back,
I
think,
to
solve
this
specific
problem
about
being
able
to
filter
for
files,
then
just
start
autocomplete
field
that
sounded
brilliant
now.
Somebody
else
is
gonna
have
to
try
and
figure
out
how
to
get
all
of
these
fields
to
work.
J
J
Let's
see-
and
lastly,
I
want
to
talk
about
telemetry
issue.
285
is
the
big
meta
issue.
There's
been
a
lot
of
activity
on
this
in
the
last
week,
big
thanks
to
draw
month
for
doing
the
reviewing
on
that
checking
it
out.
It
looks
like
herb.
J
Duel
also
came
through
and
re-reviewed
a
couple
of
times
as
well
and
this
issue
now
it
seems,
like
people
are
in
agreement
that,
like
this
looks
good
for
core
inclusion,
like
the
we've
had
it
code,
reviewed
now
by
multiple
people,
which
is
awesome,
I
had
hoped
to
get
the
project
module
portions
merged
into
project
and
deployed
this
past
week,
but
I'm
sorry
that
I
didn't
get
that
together,
but
I
think
that
we're
now
even
more
confident
than
we
were
before
that
this
looks
all
ready
to
go
so
next
step
here
is
to
get
project
module
changes
merged
in
so
that
telemetry
and
core
actually
has
something
to
communicate
with.
G
J
This
could
be
a
like
fuzzy
zone
that
that,
if
we
put
telemetry
in
core
and
have
it
disabled,
we
could
use
this
period
in
between
feature
freeze
and
release
to
finesse.
What
it
looks
like
when
it's
enabled
or
when
on
new
installs
or
something
like
that.
J
Because
it
doesn't
do
a
whole
lot,
obviously,
and
yeah
and.
J
G
Any
of
us
actually
has
any
reservations
like
we're
happy
to
put
it
there.
It
was.
It
was
because
we
thought
that
we
had
reservations
that
we
sort
of,
like
said,
let's
add
it
as
hidden
we're
more
than
glad
to
yeah
yeah,
okay,.
F
Maybe
nate
are
you
suggesting
that
that
by
feature
freeze
we
have
it
committed
but
disabled,
but
that
we
work
on
the
ui
and
could
potentially
enable
it
before
the
actual.
G
J
J
Option
to
enable
it
in
the
installer
yeah,
maybe
we
don't
enable
it
by
default,
and
but
maybe
we
expose
it
somehow
surface
it
somehow
to
to
the
end
you're
saying
you
know,
could
you
please
turn
this
on
or
but
the
nice
thing
is
for
existing
sites.
The
existing
sites
problem,
I
think
maybe
we
should
hold
off
on.
J
J
Yeah
sounds
like
everybody
likes
that
idea.
So,
okay,
well
we're
super.
I
mean
we're
not
super
overtime
but
we're
running
over.
Does
anyone
have
any
last
thoughts
or
anything
else,
they'd
like
to
bring
up
before
we
close.
F
I
J
Well,
let's
close
for
today,
then
thank
you
all
for
for
being
here
and
thanks
for
all
of
your
work,
this
past
week
and
always
yeah.
This
is
definitely
the
most
exciting
part
of
a
release
and
looks
like
this.
One
is
no
exception
that
the
flurry
of
activity-
oh
and
it
was
mentioned
before
the
recording
that
we
were
talking
about
code
sprints
this
weekend,
depending
on
how
things
shake
out,
there's
a
good
chance
that
I'll
be
available
most
of
tomorrow
and
hopefully
most
of
monday.
J
So
this
weekend
will
be
a
good
weekend
for
opportunities
tim.
You
you
had
suggested
just
if
somebody
is
doing
actively
like
setting
aside
time
that
start
up
a
a
chat
or
sorry
a
a
jitsi
or
a
zoom,
or
something
like
that,
put
it
into
zulip,
and
then
anybody
that
wants
to
join
can-
and
I
think
that
we'll
probably
be
doing
a
little
bit
of
that
this
weekend-
code
freeze
itself
isn't
actually
until
wednesday.
So
we
actually
have.
You
know
a
little
bit
time
after
the
weekend
as
well.
J
G
Channel
that
says,
120
sort
of
like
release
sprints
and
then
anyone
can
just
jump
in
at
any
time
and
say:
hey,
I'm
currently
working
for
like
an
hour
or
two
or
whatever,
and
then
others
can
jump
in.
F
And
we
did
designate
11
to
4
p.m.
Pacific
time
this
saturday,
some
of
us
will
be
online
and
so
that's
a
designated
time.
But
people
can
work
anytime
and
open
up
other
spaces.
J
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
thank
you.
All
I've
got
to
drop
and
yeah.
Thank
thank
you
and
we'll
end
in
the
broadcast.
So
thanks.