►
From YouTube: 2022/05/26 Backdrop Weekly Dev
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,
it's
may
26
2022,
and
this
is
the
backdrop
weekly
developer
meeting.
We
get
together
every
week
to
talk
about
the
latest
things
in
backdrop,
development
before
we
get
started
we'll
do
some
introductions.
My
name
is
nate
lampton
from
oakland,
california,
I'm
quick
sketch
on
the
internet
and
a
core
committer
for
backdrop.
A
Thanks
robert
tim
and
then
martin.
B
C
A
All
right
thanks,
everybody,
it's
great
to
have
everyone
here
today.
Let's
see
we
usually
like
to
do
little
community
updates
jen.
Do
you
want
to
give
us
an
update
on
some
community
aspects.
D
D
A
That's
it
excellent
thanks
all
right.
We
have
a
forum
post
every
week
that
solicits
topics
for
us
to
discuss
during
these
meetings.
There
weren't
any
comments
on
that
thread
this
week,
but
we
did
have
the
request
to
give
an
update
on
the
porting
of
of
the
organic
groups.
A
Module
there's
been
an
initiative
to
get
that
module
updated
so
that
well
for
multiple
purposes,
but
one
of
them
is
is
that
our
translation
server
is
the
only
site
in
our
suite
of
backdrop,
cms
infrastructure
sites
that
is
still
running
drupal,
it's
running
triple
seven
and
it's
dependent
upon
organic
groups.
A
So
that's
one
really
good
reason
for
us
to
get
organic
groups
updated.
There
was
another
one
too,
and
I
feel
like
I'm
missing
jen
or
tim.
There
was
a
secondary.
B
And
then
it
has
come
up
a
number
of
times
in
discussions
about
like
marketing
and
outreaches
that
people
have
said
there
are
certain
sites
that
really
need
organic
groups.
That
would
not,
you
know
otherwise
be
considering
background,
but
can't-
and
you
know,
organic
groups-
isn't
the
only
module
like
that,
but
it's
one
of
the
big
ones
that
we
hear
about
a
lot
so.
A
B
B
He
had
been
working
actively
on
it
later
and
is
is
officially
the
maintainer,
but
laren
is
going
to
be
on
a
sort
of
semi-sabbatical
for
a
while
and
was
looking
for
somebody
to
help
co-maintain
it
rg
piano
stepped
up
agreed
to
do
that
and
in
the
last
week,
has
committed
a
bunch
of
changes,
he's
done
some
testing
and
actually
migrating
or
upgrading
a
drupal
7
site
with
organic
groups,
testing
the
upgrade
process.
B
We
I
helped
him
create
a
demo
content
module.
So
it
was
the
organic
groups.
Module
is
not
really
intuitive
when
you
just
plug
it
in
most
of
us
that
were
testing
it
like
had
to
go,
read
instructions
on
how
to
get
it
set
up
and
we
decided
that
there
we
could
add
a
a
demo
content,
sub
module
which
would
automatically
create
some
groups
and
some
content
so
that
if
a
user
wanted
to,
they
could
much
easier,
try
it
out
and
see
it
and
that's
been
added.
It's
now
part
of
it.
B
So
anyways
we're
with
substantial
progress
there.
There
are
a
few
I
think
I
think,
they're
fairly
fringe
bugs
that
that
are
being
worked
on
like
for
very
specific
use
cases.
I
think
in
general
people
that
have
just
tried.
It
say
the
basic
functionality,
it
all
seems
to
be
pretty
stable
and
so
hershey
piano
is
hoping
to
do
a
again
a
beta
release
within
a
week,
maybe
early
next
week.
I
would
hope,
and
at
which
point
we
can
get
more
you
people
will
be
able
to
download
it
and
install
it
in
the
installer.
B
If
you
are
someone
who
is
able
to
and
willing
it
is
in
the
backdrop
contrib
group,
so
you
can
go
to
github
and
download
it
today
and
try
it
out
and
any
additional
testing
before
next
week.
Would
you
know
help
us
make
that
beta
release
even
more
stable?
So
I
think
that's
it.
A
All
right,
wow,
that's
great
yeah
lots
of
really
positive
news
there,
all
right,
let's
go
to
in
lieu
of
other
questions,
we'll
do
run
down
through
status
report
on
the
next
release.
It's
a
long
ways
away.
It's
september,
15th
2022,
but
yeah,
there's
already
some
exciting
progress
and
kind
of
some
objectives
for
the
release
are
shaping
up.
A
One
of
them
is
issued
1301
the
inclusion
of
a
reference
module
into
core.
This
has
been
showing
a
lot
of
progress
recently,
herb
dual
is
spearheading
this
effort
he's
now
the
advocate
for
it,
and
I
think
we've
covered
this
many
meetings
now
that
the
approach
that
we're
taking
is
is
taking
the
contrib
version
of
entity,
reference
module
wholesale
directly
into
core
and
that
issue
1301
has
a
pull
request.
A
That
does
exactly
that.
This
past
week
we
also
made
some
improvements
to
it
to
handle
the
situation
of
what,
if
there's
contributing
reference
module
on
your
site
and
the
core
in
any
reference
module
gets
pulled
in.
This
is
a
situation
that
we've
handled
several
times
before.
So
we
repeated
all
of
the
same
processes
for
notifying
the
user
that
there's
two
versions
of
the
module.
We
have
the
status
report
that
identifies
that
there's
multiple
versions
of
the
module.
A
I
also
wrote
a
change
log
describing
you
know
what
to
do
if
you
have
been
using
unity
reference
or
if
you
haven't
been
using
any
reference,
what
to
do
about
the
other
reference
modules,
so
we've
got
some
documentation.
That
kind
of
preemptively
describes
what
would
happen
if
the
this
entity
reference
gets
put
into
core.
A
You
know
dealing
with
the
situations
of
what,
if
you're,
using
term
user,
sorry
user,
node
reference
reference
module
or
entity
reference
like
what
do
you
do
in
all
three
of
those
situations
which
right
now
is
not
actually
a
lot,
because
the
initial
pass
will
basically
put
the
module
in
but
that'll,
be
it
at
least
initially,
we'll
see
how
far
things
come
along
herb
also
started
up
a
sub
issue,
one
of
the
first
follow-up
tasks
for
for
core.
A
Once
you
get
entity
reference
in
is
to
start
using
it
instead
of
the
term
references
that
are
provided
by
taxonomy
module
and
because
it's
strange
right
now
that
taxonomy
module
eventually
will
use
entity
reference
out
of
the
box
to
provide
the
tags
field.
But
in
the
meantime,
what
will
happen
is
that
you'll
end
up
with
two
kinds
of
reference
fields
on
your
sites,
term,
references
and
entity
references
if
you
turn
on
entity
reference
module
and
that's
a
confusing
situation.
A
A
So
the
anyway.
The
first
task
that
we
have
is
to
separate
out
term
references
from
taxonomy
module.
It's
all
the
exact
same
functions
and
everything
like
that.
Your
cup
moved
into
a
separate
module
so
that
it
can
be
turned
off
and
that
way
entity
reference
can
be
used.
Instead,
it's
we're
not
there
yet,
as
far
as
like
just
used
entity
reference
instead
of
term
references,
but
this
is
the
first
step
to
making
it
so
that
that's
even
a
possibility.
D
And
would
so?
This
would
facilitate
at
some
point
in
the
future
disabling
term
reference
on
new
installs
and
enabling
entity
reference
on
new
installs
and
then
so
short
term,
though
before
we
have
all
the
features,
are
our
what's
the
plan
for
reference
going
in
core
initially?
Is
that
the
hope
that
we
would
immediately
start
with
referencing
core
and
not
term
reference,
even
though
we
don't
have
it
there
yet
or
will
we
start
with
both.
A
Reference
fields
or
terms
the
only
qualifying
step
that
we
really
have
is
that
entity
reference
or
the
reference
module
works,
and
so
that's.
A
D
Yeah,
I
feel
like
the
node
and
all
the
other
references
are
important
enough,
that
that
might
we
might
decide
to
go
the
other
way
on
that
one
but
yeah.
I
agree
it's
confusing
to
have
two
things
that
are
the
same,
but
we
might
also
be
able
to
do
a
better
job
of
indicating
the
difference
between
edited
a
reference
and
term
reference.
Somehow
that
might
make
that
less
of
an
issue.
D
For
a
separating
term
reference
module
and
I
wasn't
really
sure
what
it
was
doing
or
why.
But
your
explanation
of
like
being
able
to
turn
it
off.
D
Any
reference
and
studies
helpful
so
yeah.
We
can
put
that
in
the
issue.
A
Yeah,
I
think,
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
when
we'd
be
able
to
remove
it,
it's
possible
that
we
might
make
it.
A
I
a
quite
remember
how
this
works.
It
there's
some
like
a
hidden
module.
Hidden
modules
are
allowed
to
be.
They
stay
on
if
they're
already
on,
and
I
think
you
can
actually
even
turn
them
off.
But
then,
once
they've
been
turned
off,
they
don't
show
up
in
the
modules
list
anymore.
So
basically
it'd
be
like
you
know.
If
you
installed
a
brand
new
backdrop
site,
imagine
that
we
had
already
fully
switched
over
to
entity
reference
term.
A
Reference
would
still
be
in
the
code
base,
but
you
wouldn't
see
it
on
the
modules
page
to
prevent
you
from
turning
it
on,
because
if
any
reference
does
it
all,
then
we
don't
want
people
to
be
using
term
reference.
A
Yeah,
but
it
is
very
exciting
that
issue
1301
I've
reviewed
it
and
marked
it
as
works
for
me,
because
I
think
that
it's
there,
like
I
mean
it's,
it's
got
full
test
coverage,
it's
already
in
use
by
so
lots
of
sites.
Hundreds
of
sites
are
using
entity,
reference
module
and
it's
a
port
from
the
drupal
7
module,
so
it's
also
very
stable,
so
yeah
I
didn't
test
like
absolutely
everything
but
functionality
wise.
You
know
it's
just
entity
reference
and
then
I
tested
the
situation
of
like
what
happens.
A
If
you
have
the
contrib
version
at
the
same
time
as
the
core
version,
so
it's
kind
of
this
could
this
could
be
kind
of
a
a
little
bit
overwhelming.
I
think,
because,
like
we've
been
talking
about
this
for
years
now-
and
it's
just
like
all
of
a
sudden
like
it
could
land
tomorrow
and
be
like
yeah,
it's
done,
you
know.
A
So
it's
just
kind
of
one
of
these
things
that
it
just
doesn't
seem
like
it
was
ever
gonna
happen
and
now
all
of
a
sudden
it's
you
know
it's
all.
It's
all
done,
because
we
we
pivoted
approaches
and,
of
course,
through
the
effort
of
herb
tool,
doing
the
work
to
make
it
core
appropriate
and
can
trip
previously.
So
he
did
a
bunch
of
work.
A
B
A
Not
to
mention
like
if,
if
your
primary
selling
point
of
your
content
management
system
is
its
ability
for
structured
data
relationships
are
incredibly
important,
and
so
this
is
there's
a
massive
win.
Just
as
far
as
like
being
able
to
build
sites
that
structure
complex
data
yeah
I
mean
I
don't
yeah
the
value.
The
value
reference
fields
is
very,
very
high.
A
Okay,
let's
see
so
yeah,
really
great
news
on
that.
One.
I'd
really
appreciate
other
people.
Taking
a
look
at
that
issue
1301,
I
kind
of
feel
like
between
herb
and
myself.
We
both
have
now
been
in
the
kitchen
baking
on
that
one.
So
I
don't
think
that
we're
fair
judges
of
saying
if
it's
rtbc
or
not
so
yeah,
we
need
some
extra
eyeballs
in
that
one.
B
A
A
No
yeah
go
ahead.
D
I
was
gonna
say
so
I
don't
have
any
back
door
websites
that
are
using
entity
reference
because
they
built
them
all
with
references,
but
would
it
be
useful
to
throw
the
core
pull
request
on
one
of
those
sites
and
work
on
a
conversion
path
and
test
it?
That
way,
or
are
we
too
soon
to
worry
about
existing
data
from
other
sources?.
A
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it's
ever
too
soon
to
start
worrying
like
start
working
on
the
migration
path,
but
the
value
that
that
would
have
right
now
is
demonstrating
that
there's,
no
good
there's
not
going
to
be
severe
consequences
for
running
entity
reference
and
node
reference.
At
the
same
time,
if
you
tried
turning
on
two
both
of
them
together
and
something
catastrophic
happened
that
would
need
to
be
addressed,
I
think.
D
B
A
Okay,
great
so
that's
issue,
1301,
plus
the
follow-up
ticket
5633
5633,
the
separate
out
term
reference.
It's
absolutely
not
a
prerequisite
for
1301
1301.
As
far
as
I
know,
it
doesn't
have
any
other
blocking
components.
B
Well,
sony:
the
two
things
are,
one
of
two
things
are
likely
to
happen
right,
one
of
which
is
that
we
we
keep
sort
of
saying
like
yeah.
Let's
do
a
little
bit
more
testing
and
then
we
end
up
merging
this
in
fairly
late
in
the
release
cycle.
The
other
is
that
we
just
get
aggressive
and
get
it
in
really
soon
and
then
it's
there
for
the
next
three.
You
know
three
months
and
you
know
people
are
testing
it,
whether
they
want
to
or
not,
because
you
know
it's
in
all
the
dev
sites.
B
A
Yeah
well
from
that
perspective
I
mean
I
yeah.
I
totally
agree.
I
would
prefer
that
we'd
be
aggressive
and
I
always
ask
that
we
be
aggressive
and
then
never
you
know
it
always
is
the
last
minute
thing
anyway,
cards
being
a
really
good
example
of
that,
I
think
in
the
last
release.
That's.
A
Of
yet
well,
I
I
do
feel
like.
C
A
But
this
one,
the
really
awkward
thing
about
this
issue
is
that
we've
been
talking
about
it
for
years,
there's
dozens
of
people
that
have
participated
in
the
issue
and
now
that
we
have
something
to
look
at
and
we're
at
the
cost
potentially
putting
it
in.
We
haven't
gotten
any
attention,
and
it's
been
that
you
know
that's
been
like
a
month
where
there's
you
know
been
a
pull
request
and
it's
ready
to
go
and
we've
been
asking
for
feedback
and
nobody's
really
commented
and
it's
kind
of
a
yeah.
Really.
A
I
think
the
problem
is
is
that
no
one
is
comfortable
because
there's
been
so
much
discussion
about
this
and
now
that
it's
time
to
actually
do
the
reviewing,
there's,
no
feedback,
and
so
it
feels
like
there
should
be
more
people
that
have
an
opinion
who
aren't
showing
up.
For
some
reason-
and
maybe
I
don't
know-
maybe
it's
a
good
thing.
You
know
it's
like
if
everybody's
happy,
then
nobody
says
anything.
A
Well,
anyway,
I
think
just
just
basic
testing
would
be
super
valuable,
just
to
get
some
more
voices
on
the
issue.
I
personally
don't
have
a
problem,
marking
it
rtbc
as
long
as
some
other
people
have
also
at
least
verbally
approved
it.
You
know
yeah.
A
Okay,
all
right,
let's
see
next
up
also
in
the
123,
milestone
an
issue
showing
some
early
signs
of
progress.
Jen
is
taking
on
field
group
functionality,
issue
647..
D
Sure
so,
last
week
after
the
meeting,
I
went
right
to
work
and
just
grabbed
the
field
group
module
and
threw
it
in
core
and
turned
it
on
and
was
like
pull
request
and
then,
of
course,
you're
like
well
hold
on
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff.
Here
that
I
got
to
start
working
on.
So
the
first
thing
I
did
was
made
a
menu
callback
for
configuring,
the
field
group,
so
that
it
works
like
other
fields.
D
So
when
you
click
on
the
configure
link,
you
get
another
page
with
settings
and
you
hit
save
and
it
takes
you
back
previously,
just
sort
of
crammed
the
form
into
the
description
field
on
the
field
listing
page,
which
I
think
is
how
it
used
to
do
it
in
drupal
6.,
and
so
I
started
there
and
was
like
okay.
D
That's
a
lot
of
change
already,
so
I
stopped
and
pushed
up
a
pull
request
just
so
that
I
could
get
some
more
eyes
on
it
and
herb
went
and
reviewed
it
immediately
and
gave
me
some
great
feedback.
He
found
some
validation
functions
that
I
missed
when
I
converted
the
form
which
I've
now
got
working
on
the
new
form
instead
and
identified
some
other
like
legacy
code
that
we
could
remove.
So
I'll
go
back
and
work
on
that
again
today
and
I
think,
there's
a
list.
D
Issues
that
gregory
created,
of
course,
into
the
main
issue,
so
you
can
see
sort
of
what
we're
looking
at
and
then
there's
a
section
there
that's
like
do.
We
need
to
do
any
more
than
what's
on
this
list,
because
I
think
we
have
like
a
sort
of
a
minimum
viable
field
grouping
core
where
it
looks
a
lot
like
it
works
today
and
it's
a
little
clue.
G
and
maybe
not.
These
are
experience
that
we
expect
for
backdrop
core,
but
we
get
the
feature
in
and
then
there's
like
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff.
D
We
could
do
to
like
make
that
user
experience
really
polished,
and
I
don't
really
know
where
that
line
should
be
on
like
when
we
get
it
in
versus
when
we
iterate.
So
I
could
give
some
feedback
on
that.
But
anyone
could
look
at
the
issue
and
let
me
know
where
we
should
stop.
A
A
D
E
D
Think
that
there
are
some
major
options
for
technical
cleanup
by
modifying
the
way
fields,
work
to
allow
for
settings
to
exist
for
non-data
entities
and
stuff
like
that.
But
I'm
not
sure
those
should
be
blockers
for
getting
this
feature
in
so
there's
definitely
a
slippery
slope
of
like
how
would
we
do
this?
The
right
way.
C
D
How
bad
do
we
want
this
feature,
and
so
nate
that's
going
to
be
up
to
you
and
some
of
the
other
core
developers
to
look
at
and
be
like.
How
comfortable
are
you
with
these
current
solutions?
I'm
not
sure
I'd
really
call
them.
Hacks
I'd
call
them
creative
workarounds,
because.
D
Using
all
the
apis,
we
provide
they're
just
using
like
four
melter
really
heavily
in
adding
things
into
renderables
and
adding
their
own
links
and
callbacks
and
behaviors,
where
we
could
have
an
actual
api
to
leverage
those
things
which
would
be
a
little
cleaner,
so
yeah
and
I'm
willing
to
work
on
the
api
changes
too.
If
you
decide
you
really
want
to
not
have
so
right
now.
D
It
looks
the
same
when
you're
using
it,
because
I
was
able
to
make
it
look
like
a
drop
button,
but
it's
definitely
not
at
all
the
same
under
the
hood,
and
I
think
that
if
you
wanted
to
make
it
so
that
we
could
define
those
links
in
the
same
way
and
have
the
form
just
render
there,
naturally
I'd
be
willing
to
work
on
doing
that.
That's
just
very
different
from
how
it's
done
right.
Now.
A
Yep
yeah,
instead
of
altering
the
field
ui,
it
would
like.
I
in
my
mind,
I
would
think
that
it
would
be
better
if
the
field
ui,
when
it
was
rendering
the
form
in
the
first
place
if
it
knew
or
if
it
if
it
had
a
more
like
like
hey.
What
are
the
links
I
should
show
for
this
thing,
regardless
of
whether
it
was
a
real
field
or
group
or
something
else
you
know,
and
then
it
would
just
it
would
be
able
to
handle
those
situations
better.
But
that
is
a
big
ask.
A
You
know
that
that
almost
starts
getting
into
like
making
like
the
title
field,
configurable
through
field
ui
and
stuff
like
that,
because
you
know
field
ui
right
now
really
only
deals
with
fields
and
if
you
introduce
groups
which
are
not
fields,
you
know
you'd
also,
probably
as
a
consequence
need
to
think
about
other
fields
that
aren't
fields.
You
know
like
title.
D
And
I
do
think
one
thing
we
could
do
is
if
we
put
this
group
example
in
court
sort
of
the
way
it
is
now
when
we
got
to
work
on
that.
Like
move
field,
title
issue,
we
would
have
the
opportunity
to
say:
okay,
we're
gonna,
and
I
don't
know
if
this,
which
issue
this
should
be
a
part
of,
but
we
could
say,
let's
refactor
field
api,
to
allow
these
additional
kinds
of
links,
we'll
use
it
for
title
and
then
we'll
also
apply
it
to
field
group,
and
we
can
we'll
have
two
different
use
cases.
D
A
Yeah
welcome
andy
doctor
montz
to
the
meeting.
E
Oh
hi,
sorry
that
was
accidental
hi
everybody
hi,
I'm
home
with
kovid.
I
forgot
so
I've
got
time
today
recovering
though
so.
A
A
All
right
great,
I
think,
we're
in
a
good
place
there
talking
about
field
group
functionality,
that's
yeah,
definitely
exploratory,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
things
to
look
at
already.
Thanks
to
the
work
you've
done
jen.
Thank
you.
A
D
C
D
Then,
as
you're
using
it
with
this
first
set
of
changes,
it
would
also
be
good
to
know
like
how
strongly
do
you
feel
about
this
random
vertical
tab
at
the
bottom
of
the
fields
page,
and
do
we
have
possible
solutions
for
that,
because,
right
now
the
only
recommended
solution
is
remove
the
feature
which
is
fine.
We
could
do
that
there
could
be
a
contrib
module.
D
It
adds
it
back
as
a
vertical
tab
if
we
wanted
to
keep
the
code,
but
that
I
so
for
me
like
looking
at
that
is
sort
of
like
an
eyesore
and
I'm
like.
I
would
much
rather
not
have
the
future
than
just
have
this
huge
extra
chunk
of
weird
stuff
going
on
on
this
forum.
So
the
forum
is
using
enough
anyway,
but
there
are
people
who
might
really
need
that
feature,
and
so
that
would
also
be
really
valuable
to
have
that
feedback
and
be
like.
D
B
D
Yeah
I've
started
doing
that.
I
made
a
bunch
of
check
boxes
on
the
like
main
post
and
any
one
of
those
things
that
we
feel
like
needs
to
have
its
own
discussion
could
have
its
own
issue
and
could
come
as
a
follow-up
to
the
first
one.
But
that's
another
thing
I
could
use
some
help
with
is
like
how
much
should
I
just
try
and
cram
in
on
this
issue
versus?
Is
it
something
that
is
going
to
be?
You
know.
B
A
Okay,
great
all
right
thanks
for
that
update,
jen
sure,
let's
see,
we've
got
nine
minutes
that
might
be
enough
to
discuss
this
one
next
issue.
It's
issue
4569
the
issue
that
tim
has
been
taking
the
lead
on
allow
admin
to
hide
the
title
on
comments.
Tim.
You
had
a
question
that
you
wanted
to
ask
about
that
issue.
Can
you
give
us
a
quick
overview
first
and
then
get
into
it.
A
A
B
B
Bear
with
me
just
one
more
second:
oh
okay!
Well
we'll
switch
there.
We
go
we're
seeing
the
my
screen
now,
okay,
so
I
will
quickly
scroll
up
to
the
top,
because
I
think
I
have
some
good.
B
The
the
basic
thing
is
that
in
in
this
was
true
triple
seven
and
in
backdrop,
when
you
add
comments,
it
asks
you
have
a
choice
between
automatically
generated
titles
or
manually
generated
titles,
but
you
have
to
have
titles,
there's
no
way
to
turn
these
off
in
core,
and
so
you
end
up
with,
like
short
comments
where
the
title
is
just
it's
almost.
B
You
know
if
somebody
said
like
I
agree,
you'd
have
a
title,
I
agree
and
then
you
and
for
some
some
types
of
comments
having
titles
is
really
helpful,
but
in
some
places
I
just
don't
think
it's
helpful
at
all.
To
me
this
often
looks
broken
and
I
immediately
am
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
turn
this
off
and
there.
So
there
is
a
contrib
module
which
allows
you
to
hide
comments.
I
opened
the
the
issue
to
allow
this
in
core
and
there's
been
quite
a
bit
of
discussion.
I
think.
B
Well,
I
think
widespread
agreement
that
this
is
a
problem
that
the
fix
should
be
in
core
but
as
I
basically
took
the
contrib
module
solution
and
tried
that
out
and
then
we
started
running
into
some
some
issues
and
I
have
two
competing
approaches
right
now
and
I'm
looking
for
feedback
on
them.
One
of
them
I'm
calling
kind
of
the
the
css
approach,
which
is
that,
basically,
what
we've
added
there's
been
a
little
bit
of
a
discussion.
B
B
And
if
you
choose
no
titles,
the
problem
we
have
is
how
to
implement
that
in
the
best
way,
because
quite
a
few
contributions
have
overridden
the
the
the
core
comment:
css
and
the
core
template
files.
So
if
I
just
change
it,
I
could
do
some
changes
to
the
core
template
files
to
fix
this.
But
then
the
feature
won't
appear
in
any
contrib
themes
and
there
are-
and
I
think,
like
half
the
contributings
have
their
own
comment
template
files.
So
another
approach
is
to
use
css
this.
B
If,
if
somebody
selects
hide
the
titles,
I
had
a
class
and
with
that
class
I
use
css
to
remove
the
title
and
replace
it
with
the
word
permalink.
Well,
if
I
do
that,
then
there
are
some
themes,
including
actually
this
would
be
the
the
chord
template.
B
Does
this
as
well
as
arctic
basis
does
something
different,
but
in
the
core
template
we
would
end
up
with
two
permalink
clips,
because
one
of
them
is
already
provided
and
we
felt
like
we
needed
to
replace
the
title
with
a
with
the
permalink
because
basis,
for
example,
doesn't
have
a
permalink.
It
just
uses
the
title.
So
if
we
just
remove
the
title,
then
there's
no
permalink,
so
this
uses
css
to
replace
it
now,
an
improvement
on
that
was
to
replace,
instead
of
using
the
word
permalink
to
have
a
little
icon.
B
So
this
is
a
picture
of
basis
where
the
title
has
been
removed.
It's
been
replaced
with
a
little
link
icon
that
serves
as
the
purple
link
now
the
those
those
themes
that
override
the
the
the
template
also
tend
to
override
the
css
file.
So
in
order
to
make
this
work,
I
had
to
add
a
new
comment.
Title
css
file
in
core-
or
you
know
in
in
the
comment-
module
core.
B
The
other
alternative-
and
this
is
my
other
pr-
says-
we're
not
going
to
worry
about
that-
we're
just
going
to
make
the
change
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
make
the
change
using
the
existing
template
in
css
spots
and
and
but
then,
if
we
do
this
so
in
this
one,
I
basically
just
use
the
the
template
file
and
the
css
to
hide
the
title,
and
I
go
ahead
and
I
add
a
little
link
icon.
In
this
case,
I
had
more
control.
B
I
thought
the
the
link
I
kind
of
looked
better
on
the
right
side
than
on
the
left,
but
we
could
put
it
anywhere,
but
the
point
is
we're
deliberately
adding
this
icon
in
the
basis
template
in
the
arctic
or
the
core
template.
We
just
remove
the
title
because
there's
already
a
permalink-
and
I
would
just
leave
that
I
wouldn't
change
it
because
so
yeah
and
I
mean
I
guess
basically,
the
decision,
then,
is
bad.
The
problem
here
is:
if
we
do.
If
we
went
with
the
second
approach,
we
have
a
feature.
B
B
A
lot
not
a
lot,
but
but
at
least
one
or
two
yes,
which
which
actually
those
so
those
things
aren't
the
problem
right,
because
we
could
hide
it
in
the
core
template
and
it
isn't
going
to
change
it
there.
But,
but
that
is
something
to
factor.
Is
that
well
yeah?
Even
a
theme
has
the
ability
to
do
that,
a
contrib
theme,
so
we
could
have
this
feature
that
says
hide
title
and
and
somebody
using
a
contributing
might
say.
Well,
there
is
no
title.
B
A
Yeah
so
both
ways
on
sites
that
hide
the
title,
regardless
of
the
setting
the
setting
right
now,
doesn't
make
sense,
and
if
we
introduce
a
new
setting
that
says
hide
the
title
and
existing
contrib
themes
don't
recognize
it.
Then
they
also
will
the
setting
also
won't
make
sense
for
them,
but
I
think
that
this
is,
it
only
doesn't
make
sense
in
both
places,
because
the
option
doesn't
exist
for
them
to
respect,
and
so
I
think,
by
adding
the
option,
then
people
are
like
oh
well.
A
B
No,
I
I
don't
think
anybody's
arguing
that
we
shouldn't
do
this.
The
debate
is
how
to
do
it
the
best
way,
and
I
I
would
say
that
the
the
sentiment
seems
to
be
leaning
towards
the
making
the
changes
to
the
template
files,
because
that
seems
the
logical
place
to
do
it
and
then
just
inform
well.
You
know
letting
theme
developers
address
this
on
their
own.
I
just
I
feel
a
little
queasy
about
the
idea
that
there's
this
high
title
option
that
a
lot
of
contrib
themes
didn't
address
and
they
didn't.
B
You
know
it
isn't
like
they
overrode
it
right.
It's
like
it
wasn't
there
for
them
to
deal
with,
and
you
know
so.
Some
people
have
sort
of
said.
Like
themes
should
have
the
final
say
so
it's
sort
of
their
issue,
but
that
it
doesn't
seem
fair
to
me
to
introduce
a
new
feature
and
then
say:
well,
it's
the
theme.
You
know
it's
the
themes
or
developers
responsibility
that
they
didn't
address
it
before
it
existed.
B
But
maybe
it's
not
that
big
a
deal,
and
you
know
I'm
sure
that,
like
indigozella
to
maintain
several
themes
that
this
would
affect-
and
I
think
she
is
leaning
towards
if
I
understand
her
correctly-
leaning
towards
us
just
changing
at
the
template
and
she
would
update
her
themes
to
reflect
that.
But
you
know
we
don't
know
that.
B
So
this
only
becomes
an
issue
if
somebody
goes
in
and
decides
to
hide
their
titles
and
they
weren't
hiding
them
before
and
then
one
of
two
things
is
going
to
happen
either
with
the
css
theme.
It's
going
to.
You
know
we're
going
to
arbitrarily
stick
a
little
icon
in
there
instead
of
the
title,
which
you
know
may
or
may
not
be
how
the
theme
developer
would
have
chose
to
do
it
or
nothing's
going
to
happen
if
we
changed
and
and
is
that
acceptable.
C
D
Yeah,
I
think
I
would
be
curious
about
the
template
changes
if
those
are
backwards
compatible.
D
Just
because,
if
we're
changing
a
template
in
court
and
nobody's
overridden
it
over,
but
people
have
themed,
essentially
the
output
that's
coming
from
core.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
it
isn't
actually
changing
the
rendered
output,
even
though
the
template
can
be
different,
which.
B
B
I
mean
again
in
theory:
all
it's
doing
is
hiding
something
that
was
there
should
be
the
only
change,
and
only
if
somebody
selects
it
so
it
you
know
it's
the
the
rendered
output
won't
change
at
all
unless
somebody
hides
their
titles
and
then
something
is
simply
removed
right,
we're
not
adding
anything
it
I
mean
it's
so
it
it
is.
I
mean
I'm
not
it.
B
If
somebody,
for
example,
did
a
a
a
a
custom
theme,
a
sub
theming,
a
core
theme-
I'm
not
saying
that
it
wouldn't
have
a
negative
effect
that
it's
backward
compatible
in
that
sense.
It
could
it's
just
that,
that's
something
I
think
we
can't
anticipate
and
we
can't
prevent
because,
anytime,
we
add
a,
we
add
a
fee.
B
D
Yeah
it's
just
with
when
you're
changing
template
files,
there
are
things
you
can
change.
That
would
so
we
just
need
to
test
it
and
make
sure
that
yeah
I
haven't
looked
at
it
yeah.
That's.
B
B
I
I
lean
that
way.
This
feels
just
the
the
first
way
with
the
css
feels
better
to
me,
but
I
understand
the
concerns
I
mean
it
feels
like
you
know
the
better
way
to
do.
It
would
be
to
do
it
in
the
template,
but
except
for
the
fact
of
this,
you
know
how
it's
going
to
affect
users
so
I'd
rather
do
it
the
first
way,
but
I'm
you
know
I'm
getting
pushed
back
in
the
other
direction
and
I'm
willing
to
go
either
way.
If
there's
a
consensus.
D
Yeah,
I
think,
from
the
description
that
sounds
good,
but
yeah
I'll,
look
at
the
code
too,
because
there
could
be
technical
concerns
as
to
why
they
don't
like
the
css
approach
either.
I
don't
yeah
could
produce
another
review
for
sure.
Well,.
B
D
B
Okay,
well,
we
can
end
this.
I
would
I
I
was
curious
if
he
had
any
get
his
feedback
on
like
I'd
like
a
core
committer
right.
If,
if
one
of
these
ways
just
isn't
acceptable
to
nade
or
someone
else,
it
would
be
nice.
C
One
thing
just
just
to
make
sure
is
that
the
link
has
suit,
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
an
image
that
it's
got
suitable
tags
so
screen,
readers
can
know
what
the
image
is
for.
What
the
link
is
for
sure
well,
which
could
just
be
like
permanently
alt.
The
the
title
is
permalink
just
for
the
image
and
the
you
are
and
for
the
a
h,
ref.
A
C
A
bit
that
that
that
it's
as
simple
as
that,
really
it's
just
so
someone
on
a
screen
reader.
They
don't
just
see
a
random
image.
It's
very
clear
what
this
image
does.
D
C
D
B
B
B
I'm
using
right
now
is
one
of
these
ones
where
it
just
moves
the
titles,
a
thousand
pixels
to
the
left
and
then
puts
in
a
background
image
which
may
not
be
the
right
way
to
do
this
and
that
you
know
maybe
there
are
accessibility
concerns
we'd
have
to
address
if
we
want
that
route,
but
I
didn't
want
to
go
too
deep
into
trying
to
make
that
system
work
until
I
knew
that
that's
when
I
was
getting
pushed
back
on
that
system
right,
other
people
are
pushing
us
in
the
other
direction.
B
B
Okay,
well,
I
think
we
should
wrap
up
the
meeting
with
so
unless
anybody
I
mean,
I
don't
don't
think
we
decided
anything
here
at
the
best
I've
given
more
exposure
to
this
discussion.
There's
no
urgency
here.
This
is
a
an
issue
for
the
next
release,
which
is
still
three
months
away.