►
From YouTube: Backdrop Weekly - Aug 20th, 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
Did
it
work?
Okay,
it
looks
like
we're
live.
Hopefully
we're
live
on
the
right
channel
this
time
for
those
of
you
who
missed
the
introduction.
This
is
the
backdrop
weekly
meeting
for
august
20th
we've
gone
through
some
of
the
agenda
already.
I
don't
know
if
it's
worth
redoing
introductions,
no,
okay,
we're
just
going
to
jump
back
into
the
core
issues,
which
is
where
we
were
reviewing
issues
for
backdrop
core.
We
started
with
issue
number
4167,
supplemental
style
sheets
and
asked
for
more
feedback.
A
There
are
a
bunch
of
people
weighed
in
on
that
early.
Another
pull
request
to
review.
A
And
then
we
have
a
handful
of
issues
that
need
work,
including
update.p
php,
throwing
a
potentially
dangerous
error.
That
is
in
our
instruction.
That
is
incorrect.
That
issue
is
38.46.
A
We
have
issue
to
restore
the
views
page
by
date.
Pager
it's
number
2766
looks
like
that.
One
also
could
use
some
feedback
we're
trying
to
decide
whether
it
belongs
in
the
core
date
module
or
could
be
safely
moved
to
the
calendar
module.
Instead,
then,
we
have
the
ck
editor,
not
saving
in
source
mode,
and
I
think
that
one
was
a
little
tricky
because
in
modals
it
seems
to
be
a
problem,
but
not
in
modals.
A
It
doesn't
and
then
we
have
a
one
issue
that
still
needs
testing
and
code
review
and
that's
when
your
site
gets
stuck
in
maintenance
mode
after
doing
something
like
a
module
update,
so
that
is,
you
could
use
review
testing
and
then
I
have
a
issue
here
for
php
cs
automated
code
checks,
30
32
13.
joseph.
Do
you
have
an
update
for
us
on
that
one
this
week.
B
I
haven't
made
a
lot
of
progress
since
last
week.
I
think
the
next
step
is:
we
need
three
dot
x
branches
and
the
related
repositories
so
that
we
can
actually
merge
the
stuff
in
okay.
A
So
I
also
got
really
confused
about
all
of
this
branch
numbering
stuff,
because
maybe
this
is
worth
talking
about
the
coder
module
for
drupal
works
on
multiple
versions
of
drupal,
so
it
works
on
triple
eight
or
central.
Seven
works
on
triple
nine
and
there
so
there's
no
there's
only
one
branch
and
that
version
of
coder
runs
on
php
cs3
one.
A
I
think-
and
so
I
didn't
know
like
our
usual
process
with
branch
numbering
is
to
match
drupal's
branch
numbering
especially
if
there's
like
a
7.x
4.2
the
backdrop
version
that
contains
all
the
same
code
as
7.x4.2
would
be
called
1.x
4.2,
which
makes
sense,
but
in
this
case,
because
there's
one
version
that
doesn't
match
the
triple
7,
it
doesn't
match
triple
eight
version
and
it
semantically
versions.
It's
just
like
eight
dots.
Something
got
something.
A
I
didn't
really
know
how
we
wanted
to
handle
branch
numbering
for
backdrop,
because
we
could
have
a
version
that
also
runs
on
php
cs31.
That
was
numbered,
eight
dot,
whatever
dot
whatever.
But
that
could
be
confusing
because
it's
eight
or
we
could
just
throw
out
drupal's
version
numbering
and
start
our
own
like
we
right
now.
A
The
branch
that's
on
there
is
like
a
1.x
branch,
maybe
we
just
say
forget,
matching
drupal
and
call
it
a
2.x
branch
and
make
like
breaking
changes,
but
then
there
isn't
going
to
be
any
way
to
tell
whether
we've
included
any
of
the
fixes
that
are
in
the
drupal
version.
In
the
backdrop
version
or
not,
so
I
don't
know,
I
left
a
whole
bunch
I
originally
was
like.
I
think
we
should
do
this
and
then
do
much
research
and
I'm
like.
I
have
no
idea
what
we
should.
A
D
D
I'm
not
sure
if
it
touches
us
but
have
changed
their
versioning
scheme
so
that
they
don't
include
the
major
version
like
no
dot
8
dot,
x
or
9.x.
They
might
just
go
to
a
version
13
or
whatever
module.
So.
B
A
A
B
A
So
I
don't
know
I
mean
I
don't
even
know
it's
worth
like,
because
we
don't
actually
have
a
version
of
the
coder
project
for
backdrop.
We
only
have
the
sub
modules
that
were
in
it.
Maybe
it's
not
even
worth
worrying
about
matching
versions
and
we
can
like
sort
of
pick
and
choose
the
stuff.
We
need
from
the
drupal
version
and
put
it
in
the
backdrop
version
and
maybe
just
document
it
in
like
the
readme
file
or
something
where
the
divergences
are
but
yeah.
A
It
seems
like
the
drupal
versioning
is
a
bit
of
a
mess
and
the
backdrop.
Versioning
is
a
lot
of
a
mess
and
I'm
not
sure
whether
trying
to
make
the
backdrop
version
match.
The
drupal
version
is
going
to
improve
anything
at
all.
So
yeah,
I
don't
know.
Maybe
we
can,
I
think,
doc
wilmot's
maintainer
for
that
module.
Maybe
we
can
ask
him
what
he
thinks,
because
I
ran
around
in
circles
like
five
times
last
week
and
was
like.
A
D
D
E
D
B
There
there
is
a
2.x
version
of
code
sniffer,
but
I
don't
I
haven't
done
any
work
to
make
it
supported.
A
Yeah,
I
don't
know
I
feel
like
yeah.
It
would
be
good
to
have
a
conversation
with
doc
and
see
what
he
thinks,
because
I
think
also
when
he
first
created
coder
review
for
backdrop
we
had
not
yet
adopted
the
like
must
match
drupal
versioning
pattern,
and
so
he
might
have
his
own
thoughts
on
like
you
know
what
he
might
want
to
do
with
that
project,
but
it
might
also
help
joseph
I'm.
I
haven't
seen
him
around
a
lot
lately.
If
you
wanted
to
be
a
co-maintainer
on
that
project.
A
As
long
as
you,
you
know,
got
his
approval
and
made
sure
that
you
knew
what
he
wanted.
That
might
help
move
things
along
faster.
A
A
A
Okay,
well,
then,
we
either
need
to
change
that
or
we
need
to
get
rid
of
it.
So
I
think
that,
like
in
backdrop
land,
I
don't
know,
we
don't
have
a
coder
like
there
is
no
coder
for
backdrop,
so
nobody
should
be
trying
to
include
anything
called
code
code
or
with
composer
for
backdrop.
But
if
we
wanted
to
fix
the
problem,
that's
there
we
would
remove
whatever
thing
composer
found
that
thinks
that
it's
pointing
at
jeff's
thing,
which
is
also
wrong
and
point
it
at
the
contributed
module
for
code
of
review.
A
That
would
also
work,
but
I
think
it
would
probably
make
more
sense.
Long-Term
people
aren't
going
to
be
using
coder
with
backdrop.
They
should
do
a
compose
or
require
code
or
review
or
something
but
either
way.
Just
because
it's
temporarily
broken
doesn't
mean
we
need
to
keep
it
broken
long-term.
I
don't
know
how
to
fix
it,
though,.
B
B
Essential
the
long
story
is
that,
when
doc
imported
the
coder
module,
he
split
it
out
into
two
modules,
one
for
review
and
one.
D
B
My
dad
just
came
in
and
said
I
muted,
but
I
I
don't
know
anyway,
so
he
forked
it
and
made
just
a
coder,
which
is
just
the
php
cs
files
and
then
added
that
on
composer's
website.
I
don't
remember
the
actual
url,
but
so,
if
you
type
composer
require
backdrop
coder,
it
gets
that
repository.
E
A
B
A
C
The
one
that
people
are
working
on
he's
he
keeps
he
keeps
everything.
C
B
A
A
Let's
move
on
everything
is
a
mess.
We
don't
know
how
to
fix
it.
We
need
doc
walmart
to
help
okay
weekly
project
review,
one
seven,
so
I
don't
think
there's
a
lot
of
updates.
Since
last
week,
doc
walmart
asked
for
us
to
discuss
the
support
for
custom
contexts,
issue.
A
E
Because,
yes,
he
wanted
to
talk
about
that,
and
this
is
see
well,
I
say
but
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
my
understanding
is
that
from
doc,
wilmon's
perspective
he's
basically
looking
for
code
review
from
a
core
committer,
so
yeah.
So
that's
the
big
thing
he
needs,
but
I
still
feel
like
we
have
a
basic
understanding
problem.
I
have
the
pr
open
right
now.
Could
we
look
at
it
together
as
a
group
just
talk
about
what
it's
doing,
and
maybe
that
will
help
me
understand
it.
E
I'm
willing
to
do
a
screen
share
and-
and
let's
just
look
at
it
briefly
and
okay,
so
here
screen
share
boom
chair.
E
D
Go
ahead,
there's
there's
a
few
from
a
u
x
perspective,
sort
of
like
new
user
coming
at
this
perspective,
if
you
added
a
path
previously,
that
would
be
it.
But
now
you
have
that
add
context
button
there
link
which
allows
you
to
add
further
contexts
which
would
not
have
been
available
to
you.
Otherwise,
oh
yeah,
that's
a
no
problem.
You
need
to
select
a
layout
template
as
well
before
you
do
anything
still.
Gonna
complain,
yeah.
D
C
A
Page,
you
have
access
to
like
all
of
the
fields,
data
for
that
particular
node,
but
what
you've
done
by
attaching
taxonomy
term
with
an
id
of
one,
means
that
on
every
node
page
you
now
also
have
access
to
all
of
the
field
data
for
only
that
one
taxonomy
term.
Okay,
so
you've
essentially
made
it.
So
you
could
pull
out
and
place
fields
for
that
term
anywhere
on.
C
A
Like
this
is
a
context
for
only
a
single
term
or
a
relationship
in
views
would
be
like
for
any
node
get
a
related
term.
So
it's
it's
not
always
the
same
term
that
you're
adding
to
a
node
page.
Okay,.
E
A
That's
the
the
ui
we
have
now
only
supports
that
it
would
be
adding
a
single
one
so
like
if
you
made
a
landing
page
at
like
slash,
welcome
and
it's
not
a
node
page,
but
you
wanted
to
you.
Have
it
like
a
node
with
a
bunch
of
welcome
data
on
it
you're
like
oh,
I
wish
I
had
access
to
that
data
on
this
landing
page.
You
could
attach
node
six,
which
is
your
welcome
node
to
your
landing
page,
which
is
your
welcome
page
that
doesn't
have
any
node
data
on
it.
A
D
All
the
fields
of
that
piece
of
content,
for
example,
would
be
available
on
every
node.
So
you
could
add,
I
don't
know
the
body
field
or
an
image
field
of
the
post
with
id
whatever
on
every
other
noise
or
something.
So
so.
I
think
that
the
reason
why
you
and
I
used
to
have
so
much
trouble
sort
of
like
getting
our
heads
around
it
is
that
we
didn't
have
a
real
world
use
case
for
it
like
we
never
used
it
in
that
way.
D
So
we
can't
get
our
heads
around
it,
but
there
were
people
that
were
actually
using
that
a
lot,
it's
easier
for
them
to
understand.
B
A
There
is
another
pull
request
that
documents
been
working
on
that
allows
relationships
and
it's
another
plus
relationship
option.
Just
like
there's
a
plus
context
here.
That
would
allow
you
to
say
like
pull
the
node
id
from
or
pull
a
term
id
from
a
node's
field,
and
then
it
can
that
way
on
any
node.
You
do
get
the
same
kind
of
relationship
as
you
get
in
a
views
relationship
where
it's
a
more
dynamic.
So
it's
not
always
term
one.
If
we
turn
one
and
it's
not.
E
A
D
E
E
D
So
contexts
are
equally
hard
or
a
little
bit
harder
than
views
to
understand.
The
use.
Ui
has
a
really
complicated
interface,
but
you
cannot
actually
remove
or
simplify
things,
because
then,
you
sort
of
like
deprive
the
the
power
of
views
from
the
people
that
are,
you
know,
side,
builders
that
want
to
build
certain
stuff.
What
we
have
is
follow-up
issues
that
are
related
to
that.
E
Okay,
so
I
can
understand
where
we
sometimes
might
want
to
add
a
feature,
even
if
it's
not
easy
to
understand,
but
I
think
you
know
part
of
our
commitment
to
backdrop
is
to
keep
this
as
simple
as
possible.
I
mean
what
what's
going
through
my
head
right
now
is
then,
could
we
at
least
hide
it
in
a
like
bracket
it
with
something
that
says
advanced
user
right,
so
that
if
you're
a
beginner
and
you're
looking
because
right
now
the
problem?
E
When
I
look
at
this
page
right
now,
is
I
see
this
button,
and
I
think
I
should
understand
that,
and
I
don't
and
that
bothers
me
if
it's
sad
this
is
an
advanced
feature
right
used
with
care,
then
I
might
just
oh
okay
I'll
just
ignore
that,
because
I'm
not
advanced
right
or
something,
but
the
fact
that
you
know
right
now
it
just
it
deceives
me,
because
it's
making
me
think
I
should
understand
it,
and
I
don't.
A
Yeah,
I
think
you
know
one
of
the
biggest
downsides
to
panels
is
that
all
of
this
functionality
with
context
and
relationships
and
everything
was
sort
of
right
in
everyone's
face,
and
it
it
was
something
that
made
panels
seem
really
confusing
and
overwhelming
and
part
of
redoing,
the
user
interface
and
backdrop
to
get
rid
of
all.
That
was
to
make
it
a
lot
more
friendly.
A
I
feel
like
by
adding
contexts
and
relationships
back
immediately
in
the
ui.
We
are
sort
of
defeating
some
of
that
purpose.
A
If
there
might
be
a
a
in
between
step
here,
where,
like
maybe
there's
a
setting
for
layouts,
that
enables
the
user
interface
for
context
and
relationships,
so
basically
the
check
box
will
be
like
allow
additional
contacts
or
something,
and
then
this
plus
button
appears
and
without
it
we
have
the
same
ui
we
had
before
and
then
that's.
D
Exactly
exactly
because
that's
what
we're
doing
with
views
we're
we're
hiding
all
the
advanced
settings
in
an
advanced
field
set
and
that's
it.
A
A
With
the
collapsed
field
set
here
is
that
context:
there
are
contexts
that
are
related
to
the
path
that
you
enter,
and
so,
when
you
type
in
node
flash
percent,
it's
useful
to
show
people
that
oh
there's
a
now
and
node
context
there,
because
it
starts
to
build
that
underlying
concept
of
contests,
and
I
think
that
if
we
hit
the
add
context
button
in
a
collapsed
field
set,
we
would
also
probably
want
all
of
the
context
information
in
there.
But
I
think
that
there's
value
in
having
the
automatic
added
and
shown
to
people.
A
So
I'm
not
that
I
thought
was
my
first
thought
too.
I
was
like
oh,
let's
just
hide
it
and
then
my
second
thought
was
put
like
visibility
conditions
first
and
then
I
realized
that
those
path
and
context
really
sort
of
need
to
be
next
to
each
other
and
the
automatic
context.
Completion,
there's
also
value
in
showing
people
that
that's
getting
done
for
them,
so
they
don't
need
to
do
it
on
their
own.
So
I
don't
know
that
that
means
we
shouldn't
do
it.
D
I'm
not
sure
if
this
this
athlete
those
issues
from
there's
this
issue
in
the
queue
that
you
raised,
team,
the
one
about
better
help,
text
or
layout
path
field.
So
that's
issue
four
triple
five
and
then
I've
linked
a
couple
of
issues
there.
The
one
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
two
six
one:
eight.
D
So
until
what
has
provided
a
few
screenshots
there,
like
so
who's
sharing
the
screen
now,
is
it
european?
Oh
yeah?
So
if
you
can
bring
that
issue
up
a
bit,
it's
two
six
one,
eight.
D
This
is
an
idea
of
simplifying
the
path,
selection,
whole
thing
and
bringing
it
together.
So
if
you're
right
yeah,
so
so
there
there's
a
series
of
screenshots
which
sort
of
like
simplifies
the
the
path
selection,
so
that
it
makes
sense
to
notice
users.
So,
instead
of
asking
them
to
type
the
node
forceless
percentage,
they
actually
select
things
yeah.
D
We
can
move
towards
that,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
this
needs
to
block.
What
document
has
already
worked
on,
which
is
a
more
advanced
thing
we
do
for
comparison.
We
do
a
similar
thing
with
views,
so
views
has
the.
What
is
it
called
the
first
step
where
it's
the
you
don't
have
to
go
into
the
advanced
settings?
You
just
have
the
wizard
the
views
wizard,
which
allows
you
to
create
quickly
a
page
select
a
few
things
and
that's
it.
E
Okay,
well,
I
don't
want
to
hold
this
issue
up.
It
sounds
like
it's
an
important
and
useful
issue
I
just
and
even
even
if
we
left
everything
the
same,
but
just
put
a
little
bit
of
help
text
underneath
this
little
plus
button.
That
said,
you
know
that
that
gave
me
a
little
bit
of
information
like
this
is
an
advanced
feature,
use
you
know
or
pointed
to
some
you
know
a
doc.
E
E
E
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean,
I
feel,
like
we're
sort
of
like
help
text
doesn't
help
if
there's
too
much
of
it,
because
people
only
read
like
the
first
80
characters
or
something
and
stuff,
and
and
it
crea
it
also,
if
you
have
a
bunch
of
help
text
it.
A
The
initial
impression
is
that
this
is
hard
and
I
feel,
like,
I
think,
I'm
more
tempted
to
go
tim's
direction,
like
not
put
it
on
the
page
unless
you're
that
minority
of
people
that
need
it
rather
than
putting
it
on
the
page
and
then
trying
to
explain
it
in.
A
Like
context
are
really
complicated
in
order
to
explain
them
clearly,
you
can't
do
that
in
one
or
two
sentences,
as
is
made
clear
by
the
description
and
they're
not
being
sufficient.
I
don't
know
I
feel,
like
maybe.
D
D
A
D
Yeah,
so
I'm
I
was
asking
that
in
the
context
of
the
previous
issue,
that
the
scriptures
that
we
had
there
so
eventually
the
plan
would
be
to
hide
the
path
so
that
people
do
not
need
to
manually
enter
advanced
users
would
manually
enter
a
node
for
slash
whatever
novice
users
would
just
have
a
drop
down,
which
would
say,
nodes
comments,
users,
simple
cases,
that's
what
we
do
so
I
want.
I
want
the
context
added
automatically.
B
D
I
still
feel
that,
because
I've
expressed
that
in
the
past
that
this
ui
here
is
exposing
developer
notions
to
users
and
I've
expressed
that
like
in
the
we
are
now
in
the
4
000
some
issues,
I
expressed
it
when
it
was
like
the
thousands,
the
first
thousands,
which
is
that
this
is
thinking
as
a
developer
and
then
exposing
that
exposing
that
in
the
ui
just
and
and
the
the
goal,
the
simple
goal
would
be
so
a
simple
user
would
say:
I
want
to
create
a
layout
for
all
my
content,
so
that's
what
he
would
select.
D
He
wouldn't
think
that
I
want
a
a
layout
with
that
path
or
that
context
you
would
say
I
want
layout
for
my
content
and
then
I
would,
I
would
like
to
add
a
visibility
condition
that
say
only
for
pages
or
only
for
posts.
So
now
we're
doing
the
opposite.
We
are
asking
people
to
just
do
the
advanced
thing.
That's
why
I
mentioned
before
that.
This
is
the
advantage.
D
E
Think
we're
gonna
solve
this
today,
so
I
suggest
yeah
sure
the
gesture
would
be-
and
I
you
know
doc-
willmott's
probably
gonna,
watch
this
later
and
you've
been
a
little
bit
helpful.
I
feel
like
this
is
I
I'm
convinced
this
is
a
valuable
feature.
E
We
need
to
get
it
in
and
you
know,
let's
not
let
this
stuff
hold
it
up,
but
let's
also
figure
out
how
to
start
making
this
page
better
and-
and
you
know,
I
wonder
if,
like
we
shouldn't,
have
like
a
meeting-
you
know-
maybe
in
the
next
release
cycle
early
on
that
just
like
talks
about
the
bigger
problems
here.
You
know
focus
on
getting
this
in
now,
not
holding
it
up
and
then
making
a
concerted
effort
later
to
say:
okay,
now,
let's
start
really
focusing
on
making
this
page
easier
to
use
and.
D
Yeah,
but
it's
it's
really.
It's
really
easy
to
understand
what
we're
doing
here
with
regards
to
ux,
not
the
actual
goal
of
this
page.
What
I
was
referring
to,
because
if
you
think
why
people
are
coming
to
this
place
is
like
they
want
to
create
a
layout
for
their
pages
and
immediately
we
say
all
right,
you
give
it
a
name
all
right.
They
understand
that
decide
how
it's
going
to
look
like,
but
it's
structured.
It
has
pretty
images.
Yes,
they
can
select
that
and
then
we
go
contexts.
D
They
go
wait
a
minute
what's
that,
whereas
if
we
gave
them
an
option,
I
would
like
to
create
a
layout
for
my
content,
like
the
screenshot.
That
document
has
on
that
other
issue.
I
want
to
create
it
for
user
pages
or
for
taxonomy
terms
or
for
comments.
This
is
something
that
they
can
relate
to
and
advanced
users
can
say.
No,
I
don't
want
this
simple
select
list.
D
I
want
the
advanced
options
so
that
I
can
specify
a
path,
complex
custom,
contexts
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
but
novice
users
would,
I
imagine,
want
to
create
things
that
they
understand
or
layouts
for
things
that
they
understand.
A
E
Anyway,
I
think
what
doc
really
wanted
was
to
get
somebody
to
do
a
code
review
and
help
him
with
the
underlying
code.
So-
and
I
don't
know
if
any
of
us
here
can
help
him
with
that
today,
but.
D
No
but
nate
left
a
few
comments
in
the
for
requests
because
I
looked
at
it
like
earlier
today,
yeah
and
there's
one
there's
three
comments.
I
think
and
one
of
them
dr,
has
responded
but
there's
another
two:
okay,
I'm
not
sure
if
dr
is
aware,
but
maybe
he
was
seeking
some
more
code
reviews
from
either
herb
or
peter
or
jeff.
I
guess
okay.
A
Let's
see
so,
I've
been
themed
for
a
login
form.
That
was
something
that
opened
up
a
whole
can
of
worms.
I
bumped
the
milestone
to
118
because
we
aren't
going
to
get
all
of
the
related
problems
resolved
before
117
is
done.
If
that
also
ends
up
being
a
problem,
when
we
get
done
with
17,
I
might
remove
the
milestone
entirely,
we'll
see
how
people
feel
about
it.
A
The
next
one,
one
of
the
related
issues
to
getting
an
admin
theme
on
the
login
form
was
removing
the
view
administration
theme
permission,
which
was
something
that
was
added
for
overlay,
which
we
don't
have
anymore,
and
I
have
a
pull
request
there.
That
needs
some
work
on
it
number
4047..
A
It's
an
issue
next
issue
this
one.
I
really
like
number
706,
we'll
add
a
htaccess
file
to
protect
files
in
config
directories
from
being
browsed.
We
had
originally
set
up
the
hash
on
the
config
directory.
Name
is
sort
of
like
you
can't
find
it,
so
you
can't
see
them,
but
a
htaccess
file
would
prevent
anyone
any
server
running
apache
from
actually
allowing
those
files
to
be
found.
A
Even
if
you
didn't
know
the
name
of
that
directory-
which
I
think
is
great
so
that
is
listed
as
also
needing
testing
and
code
review
issue
706.
So
it's
an
old
one
too,
which
is
good.
D
There
I
sneak
a
new
one
in
there:
three
six
five
one:
five:
nine
lazy
loading
for
images
or
needs
more
discussion.
D
Is
your
number,
so
it's
I've
added
it
in
the
agenda.
It's.
A
So
this
is
an
issue
that
there
is
a
new
attribute
for
image
tags.
I
think
it's
like
loading
equals
lazy
or
something
that
makes
it
so
that
browsers
that
have
relative
native
lady
lays
native
natively
support,
wow
big
mouthful,
we'll
load
those
images
lazily,
and
this
is
something
that
I
think
I
noticed
a
long
time
ago
when
I
was
trying
to
make
one
of
my
slow
backdrop.
Sites
run
faster
and
I
was
like
oh
my
gosh.
A
We
should
do
this
everywhere,
and
so
I
created
an
issue
and
then
I
forgot
about
it
and
now
everybody
else
has
found
it
and
decided
it's
a
good
idea.
Yay.
D
So
the
pull
request
was
simpler
than
I
thought
actually,
so
there
were
a
few
discussions
of
whether
we
should
do
it
or
not
by
default,
and
I
think
it
was
dale
franklin
that
was
opposing
us
to
it
might
cause
issues
with
certain
spikes
or
collapse,
form
fields
anyways,
so
I've
tested
it
on
so
the
things
that
are
will
be
would
be
broken
or
could
be
broken
are
system
things
which
are
not
like
the
way
that
I
implemented.
It
is
on
the
images
that
we
upload,
which
would
not
be
your
theme,
images.
D
If
that
makes
sense,
it
would
be
the
content
images.
So
if,
if
a
site
has
a
content,
type
called
the
gallery
and
people
are
allowed
to
upload
up
to,
I
don't
know,
10
photos
high
quality
photos.
That
means
that
it
saves
them
time
when
these
are
loaded
and
especially
on
mobile
devices.
It
saves
the
environment,
so
feedback
that
I
would
like
on
this
pull
request
is
like
I
currently
place
the
checkbox
for
that
in
the
performance
thing.
Is
that
a
good
place.
A
And
so
this
is
it
changes.
Just
theme
image
is
that
right.
D
A
D
So
I
can't
remember
which
issue
it
was
during
previous
minor
release.
I
think
that
bw
panda,
pier
just
came
up
with
an
awesome
feature.
It
was
last
couple
of
weeks
before
the
release
and
we
snuck
it
in.
We
thought.
Oh
we're
not
going
to
have
any
features
there
you
go.
D
Yes,
that's
what
I
said
so
in
the
chord
reviews,
there's
around
five
issues
in
the
queue
that
have
the
milestone
time,
but
not
milestones,
and
I
cannot.
I
think
I
shouldn't
be
adding
milestones
to
issues
that
I
have
created
the
pull
request
or
I
raised
myself.
So
I
need
someone
else
to
just
comment.
D
B
Course
should
we
have
a
test
that
checks
image
tags
while
that
setting
is
turned
off.
D
So
what
I've
done
is
I've
updated
the
current
tests
so
that
this
is
tested
conditionally,
whether
that's
enabled
or
disabled?
We
can
repeat
the
same
tests
once
with
that
feature
one,
and
once
would
that
supplies.
B
D
Working
on
that
issue
has
made
me
file
four
five,
five:
two:
I
think
that
the
relevant
tests,
they're
they're,
checking
unnecessarily
they're
checking
the
structure
of
the
image
tag
that
is
being
generated
when
the
test
itself
is
for
image
styles,
and
we
do
check
that
the
image
has
been
resized
rotated,
whatever
it
was,
but
then
we
check
the
entire
image.
D
So
if
we
update
those
tests
to
just
limit
what
we're
actually
testing
anyway,
that's
a
follow,
but
still
we
can
adapt
this.
I
don't.
I
don't
object
to
that.
Yeah.
D
So
the
other
issue
no
spun
off-
that
is
four
double
five
two
and
that's
a
dx
issue.
Just
a
comment
on
that.
I
asked
it.
I
started
it
as
a
question
because
I
wasn't
sure
I
see
that
the
the
tests
for
these
image
styles
are
being
repeating
the
same
routine.
D
So
what
they're
doing
is
they're
applying
the
the
image
style
and
then
they
check
the
entire
image
tag
that
gets
generated,
whereas
what
they
should
be
checking,
because
that's
the
name
of
the
test
and
the
purpose
of
the
test
is
the
width
and
the
height
of
the
image.
That
is
the
properties
that
have
been
added
to
the
tag.
D
If
we
want
to
test,
if
the
tag
was
properly
generated,
then
we
should
use
like
native
xml
password
php
functions
to
do
that,
all
right,
but
that's
a
follow-up.
D
Because
the
actual
image
is
being
so
so
that
every
single
test
does
this
routinely
it?
It
applies
the
style
sheet
it.
It
checks
the
entire
image
tag
that
gets
generated,
whereas
I
I
propose
that
we
only
check
the
width
and
height
attributes,
and
then
it
goes
on
grabbing
whatever
we
have
added
in
the
image
tag
as
the
source
and
check
the
actual
image
to
verify
that
the
the
dimensions
are
proper,
which
is
what
I
would
expect
this
test
to
do,
and
that's
it
so
yeah.