►
From YouTube: Backdrop Weekly November 11, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Sorry,
everybody
all
right,
we're
live
hello,
we're
doing
a
little
pre-chat.
Let's
see
today
is
november
11th
2021,
and
this
is
the
backdrop
weekly
developer
call.
It's
been
a
couple
of
weeks
since
we've
gotten
together.
Last
week
we
didn't
have
a
call
and
then
the
week
before
we
had
backdrop
live
hangover.
Basically
so.
B
Welcome
back
we'll
do
some
quick
introductions.
My
name
is
nate
lampton,
I'm
quick
sketch
on
the
internet.
I'm
a
court
committer
and
I
am
in
oakland
california
joseph.
Could
you
give
us
an
introduction.
A
E
Robert
I'm
robert
line
bug
folder
on
the
internet
from
paltadina.
California,
pass
it
to
justin.
C
I'm
justin
christopherson,
I'm
in
denver,
colorado
and
just
help
out
with
infrastructure
and
when
I
can
and
sometimes
I
import
modules
and
great
a
facet
to
peter.
F
G
Yeah
so
hi,
my
name
is
greg.
I'm
joining
from
greece
generally
interested
in
anything
related
to
backdrop
and
any
way
that
I
can
help
so
yeah.
Let's
get
going
all
right.
B
Let's
see
well
before
we
get
into
discussion
items
for
this
week
we
do
a
little
contrib
module,
update
and
community
update.
We've
had
several
new
projects
since
our
last
meeting
inline
entity
form
that's
very
exciting,
I'll.
Take
a
look
at
that
has
been
a
ported
basic
entity
plus
axoma
axioma,
a
new
theme.
So
that's
exciting.
We
don't
see
teams
as
optimized
modules.
I
think
there's
some
recipe.
B
B
So,
let's
see
discussion
items
for
this
week.
We
have
also
we've
really
fallen
out
of
the
pattern
of
everything
since
backdrop
live.
We
previously
been
making
forum
posts
and
soliciting
ideas
from
the
forum
posts,
but
we
kind
of
fell
out
of
that,
but
we'll
try
to
pick
that
back
up,
because
I
think
that
was
a
really
productive
way
to
start
discussion
items.
B
But
there
are
a
couple
of
items
that
we
prepared
prior
to
the
meeting
that
we
think
would
be
good
to
go
over
again,
one
of
which
is
the
reference
module.
The
reference
module
discussion
over
in
issue
1301
I've
seen
a
lot
of
activity
this
past
week
about
possibly
like
making
a
change
in
direction.
There's
a
lot
of
kind
of
frustration
being
expressed
that
we
haven't
made
a
lot
of
progress
recently
and
so
we're
looking
back
at
the
different
options
for
how
do
we
make
this
possible
or
how
do
we?
B
How
do
we
move
forward
on
this,
and
I
only
just
checked
in
on
it
right
before
the
call
joseph
has
been
involved
in
this
issue?
Greg
keeps
on
top
of
all
of
these
things
greg.
Do
you
think
you,
you
would
be
up
for
giving
a
little
recap
about
where
we
are.
A
Yeah,
so
right,
so
I
guess
I'll
try
to
do
my
best
job
at
summarizing.
A
Obviously,
a
lot
of
the
people
who
are
involved
are
not
in
the
meeting
right
now,
so
you
know,
but
a
lot
of
the
there
are.
Several
people
have
brought
up
that
they
think
it
might
be
better
if
we,
instead
of
building
a
new
module,
used,
just
use
any
reference,
since
it
is
already
ported
and.
A
Sorry,
since
it's
already
ported
and
has
several
hundred
installs,
rather
than
going
through
the
effort
of
finishing
up
the
reference
module,
some
going
back
through
some
of
the
older
issues,
it
seemed
like
some
of
the
the
reasons
that
people
wanted
to
create.
A
new
module
was
to
get
away
from
legacy,
verbiage
and
user
interface
stuff,
and
so
the
idea
was
to
basically
create
a
new
module
that
was
similar
to
any
reference,
but
didn't
reference
in
the
user
interface
or
in
the
function
names.
A
And
then
there
was
some
there
was
some
concern
in
the
past
about
dealing
with
c
tools
and
porting
the
module
and
how
it
would
be
a
lot
really
complicated.
But
that
was
a
long
time
ago
and
since
then
the
inter-reference
module
has
been
ported.
A
So
I
don't
think
that's
as
big
of
an
issue
as
it
used
to
be
as
far
as
the
work
that
I've
been
doing
on
it
when
I've
been
building
out
a
feature.
I
often
just
take
that
feature
from
entity
reference
and
rename
it
and
rename
all
the
functions
and
get
it
to
and
just
integrate
it
into
the
reference
module.
A
So
I
think
if
so,
I
guess
that's
kind
of
like
where
it
is
what's
been
said.
One
thing
I
did
bring
up
in
the
issue
is
that
if
we
want
to
keep
all
of
these
things
in
mind
like
take
the
entity
verbiage
out
of
the
ui
and
then
not
conflict
with
any
existing
project
that,
because
that
was
another
actually
another
issue,
is
people
didn't
want
to
be
forced
to
switch
modules
immediately
on
existing
sites?.
A
Which
would
have
been
a
problem
if
we
had
used
the
same
name
as
an
existing
module
so
anyway.
So
my
point
was
basically
like.
We
could
just
take
any
reference
and
rename
the
stuff
and
change
the
ui
to
make
people
who
are
concerned
about
the
user
experience
for
non-technical
users
and
then
just
put
that
in.
B
Right
yeah,
I
think
that's
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
turned
people
off
previously
was
that
the
matter
of
an
upgrade
path
is
really
difficult,
and
so
one
of
the
things
we
have
discussed
previously
was
not
doing
the
upgrade
path
in
the
initial
version,
because
that's
a
that's
a
really
big
barrier
to
putting
it
into
core
that
the
upgrade
path
could
potentially
come
as
a
follow-up
later
into
core
or
be
handled
and
contrib.
B
You
know
in
various
projects
like
because
the
upgrade
there's
lots
of
things
to
upgrade
between
that
there's,
the
node
and
user
references
modules
and
then
there's
entity
reference
module
and
then
there's
the
new
contrib
reference
module
and
then
there's
also
term
references,
the
ones
that
are
in
core.
So
it's
four
different
systems
that
we
need
to
provide
migrations
for,
and
it's
like
and
doing
all
of
those
is
pretty
unlikely.
B
B
B
If
we
tried
to
take
any
reference,
then,
like
just
change
it
a
little
bit
to
make
it
core
appropriate,
then
it's
really
making
yet
another
module.
B
I
I
think,
there's
also
a
big
problem
there
that
envy
reference
the
backdrop
version
depends
on
entity
plus
module
and
so
entity
plus
module
again
like
either.
We
would
need
to
if
it
were
going
to
make
it
compatible
and
work
with
all
the
existing
things
either.
We
would
need
to
move
entity
plus
into
core
2,
which
would
be
in
itself
kind
of
weird
or.
G
Yeah
yeah
yeah.
Well,
I
see
so
who
was
it
that
made
the
comment
that
yeah?
It
was
you
joseph
that
that
said
it's
less
complicated
than
what
we're
already
trying
to
do,
and
I
agree,
but
the
last
time
that
I
tried
to
wrap
my
head
penetrated
around
entity,
metal
wrappers.
G
B
Yeah,
but
I
guess,
but
it's
a
big,
it
would
be
a
big
change,
big
big,
that
it
yeah.
It
fundamentally
changes
the
way
that
the
objects
work,
and
it
doesn't
really.
I
mean
it
doesn't
really
change
the
objects
themselves,
because
metadata
wrappers
are
weird
that
they,
like
literally
they,
instead
of
referring
to
the
node,
they
put
a
wrapper
around
the
node
object
and
then
that
wrapper.
B
You
can
then
call
fields
and
chain
them
together
to
like
get
through
multiple
levels
of
references
all
just
with
like
arrows,
so
it
makes
it
easier
to
get
through
like
relationships
and
chaining,
which
is
why
these.
G
The
point
that
jen
made
is
that
yeah,
maybe
it's
easy
to
implement
things,
but
it
would
be
difficult
for
less
technical,
savvy
people
to
contribute
right
which,
if
it's
complicated,
if
the
code
is
complicated,
then
we
means
that
we
rely
on
less
people
in
the
community
to
you
know
know
what's
happening
with
with
that
subsystem
sub
component.
B
Yeah
well
yeah.
I
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
the
approach
that
we've
selected
like
to
use
reference
module
the
new
reference
module
that
we've
written
is
still
the
best
approach,
because
it's
the
only
one
that
we
originally
started
from
the
beginning,
saying
this
is
going
to
be
for
core
and
was
built
without
external
dependencies
and
without
baggage
that
we
could
actually
just
take
that
module
and
put
a
wholesale
into
court
and
don't
think
that
we
can
do
that
with
entity
reference
module.
B
B
So
that
that's
where
my
big
concern
is,
is
that
I,
I
don't
think
we
can
just
plop
in
any
reference
into
core
and
so
we'd
be
making
another
option.
G
G
G
B
That,
yes,
the
upgrade
paths
should
be
handled
separately
and
later
and
possibly
contribute
first
and
then
be
moved
into
core,
as
they
become
options
as
they
become
viable,
and
we
can
surface
them
in
the
same
way
that
we
did
for
the
emoji
update,
for
example,
the
that
it
would
flag
a
notice
on
your
status
report,
giving
you
the
option
to
proceed
forward
if
you
so
wanted
to
to
move
from
one
to
the
other,
but
moving.
The
data
is
very
different
than
moving
your
functionality
and
that's.
This
is
where
all
of
the
problems
come.
B
Is
that,
like
sure,
we
could
copy
your
data
from
existing
fields
into
new
fields,
but
there's
all
of
the
theming
and
the
configuration
around
those
fields,
the
way
that
they're
placed?
We
can't
really
provide
a
full
automatic
migration
from
one
of
these
other
modules
into
the
core
module.
We
can
only
migrate
the
data
so
would.
G
That
would
the
plan
be
that
any
new
installation,
like
any
new
site
that
was
built
directly
on
backdrop,
would
use
the
core
reference
module
and
then
people
that
are
coming
from
d7
would
use
the
respective
contrib
module
and
eventually,
when
the
upgrade
paths
are
there,
they
can
migrate
or
whatever.
We
call
it
to
the
core
solution.
B
I
would
say
that's
a
good
summary
yeah.
If
they're
looking
for
the
easiest
path
forward,
then
they
could
use
the
matching
contrib
module
yeah.
But
if
they're
looking
for
the
like,
we'll
say
like
most
like
the
easiest
solution
moving
forward,
you
know
like
lowering
the
main
maintenance
long
term.
Then
they
should
migrate
into
the
core
one.
B
G
C
C
G
There
was
someone
in
the
view
that
mentioned
that
they
were
having
issues
with
checking
for
updates,
but
they
sorted
it
out
in
the
end
and
there's
an
article
that
explains
how
to
remove
any
stale
certificates
in
the
chain
from
your
computer
to
stop
you
from
having.
So
all
the
sites
were
working,
but
besides
his
local
mump
installation
or
something
like
that,
it
wasn't
a
big
issue,
but
yeah
wow.
That
was
me.
Oh,
that
was.
C
B
B
Yeah
we
got,
we
got
an
email
through
the
security
channel,
actually
that
that
there
was
like
it
wasn't
really
a
vulnerability.
So
much
as
like
a
recommendation
to
like
just
harden
things:
yeah
yeah.
B
Stuff
justin
like
that,
doesn't
need
to
be
secret
or
private.
So
I
I.
B
B
Yeah,
I
I
mean
I'll
post
my
comment
because
I
don't
want
to
just
let
this
discussion
go
in
here,
but
I'm
also,
I
I'm
hesitant
to
do
it
just
because
it's
like
it's
against
the
tide
of
what's
in
this
issue.
So
but
that's
I
don't
know,
I
just
don't
wanna.
I
really
don't
want
us
to
just
be
circling.
You
know
with
us
saying
these
approaches
are
better
than
those
you
know,
but
it
really.
It
mostly
comes
down
to
where
the
the
will
is.
B
You
know
like
who's,
going
to
be
doing
the
work,
because
any
approach
would
work
if
they
put
in
the
effort.
F
I've
sort
of
heard
bits
and
pieces
of
this
conversation
so
sorry
for
me
something
important,
but
it
sounds
to
me
like
a
similar
situation
with
like
bee
versus
drush,
like
josh,
has
come
over
from
drupal.
It's
got
all
this
sort
of
baggage
with
it
similar
to
like
entity
reference,
whereas
reference
building
that
backdrop
core
is
sort
of
like
starting
from
scratch.
Building
a
full
backdrop.
Use
case
you
want
to
be
so
it
doesn't
have
all
of
the
baggage,
it's
more
streamlined,
easy
to
maintain,
etc.
F
So,
in
a
perfect
world,
I'd
say
that
should
want
to
go
into
court
from
what
I've
heard,
and
I
mean
the
people
pushing
for
something
to
go
into
court.
Now,
that's
ready!
It's
like!
Well,
we
do
have
contributes
working.
I
can't
reference
it
in
contribute,
so
I'd
sort
of
be
leaning
more
towards.
Let's
put
something
in
call:
that's
better
long
term
easy
to
maintain
et
cetera,
even
if
it
means
a
reading
and
people's
doing
the
same
trip
for
now.
D
A
B
Or
or
same
thing
as
before,
that's
like
well,
they
can
continue
to
exist
in
you
know,
in
their
ported
versions
and
depending
on
entity
reference
module,
even
though
you
know
like
there's
like
the
direct
approach,
is
well
just
do
exactly
the
same
thing
as
triple
seven,
but
that
might
not
be
the
most
sustainable
approach
right,
yep
robert.
Do
you
have
anything
you
want
to
add,
since
I
don't
think
you've
weighed
in
yet
nothing
to
add?
Okay,
all
right?
B
Well,
let's,
I
think
we
kind
of
talked
that
one
through
as
much
as
we
can
for
today.
There's
other
items
that
we
can
move
on
to
I
want.
I
I've
been
spending
some
time
this
week,
looking
at
seek
editor
five,
the
new
version
of
seek
editor
sick,
editor,
four
is
deprecated
and
scheduled
to
reach
an
end
of
life
sometime
next
year.
B
Greg
opened
an
issue
quite
some
time
ago.
4122,
that's
just
like
the
the
strategy
question
around
like.
Are
we
going
to
move
to
see
canada
five
and
in
the
past?
B
I
didn't
think
that
it
was
entirely
obvious
that
we'd
be
moving
to
seek
editor
5,
because
there
were
some
major
architectural
changes
in
seek
editor
5
that
made
it
really
difficult
for
us
to
adopt
wholesale.
The
one
really
big
hold
up
is
that
it
wasn't
content
compatible
backwards
compatible
with
previous
content.
So
literally,
if
you
edited
content
with
seek
editor
5,
it
would
destroy
some
of
the
content
and
the
process
of
editing
it,
which
is
completely
non-viable
from
an
existing
content
and
backwards
compatibility
standpoint.
So
then
I
was
thinking
well.
B
B
The
great
thing
the
ck
editor
project,
like
kind
of
changed
course
a
little
bit
on
that
and
they
made
it
so
that
if
it
encounters
content
that
it
can't
edit,
then
it's
puts
it
into
a
read,
only
block
inside
of
the
editor,
and
so
it's
not
like
ideal
and
that,
if,
like
you
have
markup
that
isn't
supported
say
like
I
think,
data
definitions,
dd
and
dl
tags
were
raised,
as
particular
points
that
seek
editor
doesn't
have
a
way
of
editing
those
things
but
they're
allowed
in
the
default
tag
list
of
backdrop
and
drupal
that
previously
it
would
just
like
delete
them.
B
When
you
edited
the
content,
and
now
it
just
puts
them
into
a
read-only
block
that
it
just
doesn't
touch
because
it
doesn't
know
how
to
deal
with
them.
So
the
new
the
new
version
of
c
category
five
takes
or
takes
a
much
more
like
component,
driven
approach
where
each
paragraph
is
like
a
draggable
thing
kind
of
like
gutenberg,
the
wordpress
editor
where
it's
like.
You
can
move
individual
chunks
of
content
and
it
puts
everything
into
a
chunk.
B
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
the
technical
term,
but
so
you
can
move
it
up
and
down
each
paragraph,
each
image
each
table
rather
than
just
letting
everything
be
editable
altogether
there.
It's
like
built
up
of
dozens
of
editable
parts
that
are
all
orderable
in
some
way,
so
that
new
approach
raised
a
whole
bunch
of
technical
problems
up
until
this
most
recent
change
that
they
were
like
hey
here's
a
way
to
handle
existing
content,
which
makes
all
of
this
much
more
viable.
B
For
for
backdrop,
the
other
thing
that
I
have
yet
to
figure
out
totally
and
oh,
oh,
let's,
let's
go
back
to
what
we're
referencing
here
too,
that
the
drupal
in
the
drupal
world
things
have
moved
really
pretty
far
ahead.
There's
the
seek
editor
5
module
available
in
contrib,
and
there
is
an
issue
to
put
in
that
contrib
module
in
decor
for
drupal
10.
B
B
B
B
B
So
I
I
think
we
actually
are
likely
to
continue
using
those
modals
for
doing
things
where
it's
like,
where
you're
inserting
backdrop
content
into
seek
editor
will
probably
continue
to
use
modals
our
own
modals,
but
now
we
just
won't
have
two
kinds
of
modals,
which
is
great.
We
used
to
have
both
security
models
and
backdrop
modals.
I
will
only
have
one
anyway,
I'm
kind
of
talking
a
whole
bunch
about
all
of
the
things
that
are
available
in
ck,
editor
5..
B
B
I
think
that
the
approach
that
drupal
use
is
also
a
smart
one
like
let's
make
contrib
module
and
then,
let's
put
it
into
core
and
let's
deprecate
the
old
one,
because
the
c
catheter
module
in
backdrop
is
actually
fairly
light
that
it
really
mostly
just
includes
the
library
and
the
connection
points,
but
almost
all
of
the
actual
work
of
wiring
up
an
editor
is
in
the
filter
module
for
us.
B
So
so,
if
we
make
a
new
module,
it
mostly
will
be
very
specialized
to
the
functionality
to
seek
editor
5..
B
However,
the
toolbar
arrangement
code
is
quite
gnarly,
we'll
probably
end
up
duplicating
a
lot
of
that
stuff
in
the
new
module.
But
that's
that's
probably
fine.
B
So
that's
a
summary
on
on
that
whole
little
thing.
I
think
that
we
should
continue
pursuing
it
and
maybe
actually
start
pursuing
it
really
in
earnest.
I
was
really
waffling
on
it
because
of
that
content
problem,
but
now
it
seems
like
that's
not
not
so
much
of
a
problem.
Yeah,
if
it
matters.
G
Sort
of
like
stress-wise
ck804
is
going
to
be
supported
until
2023.
G
yeah,
so
it
gives
us
a
couple
of
years,
which
is
good,
I'm
concerned
about
the
thing
that
you
said,
because
I
wasn't
aware
of
it
that
it
sort
of
like
the
previously
edited
edited
software.
Sorry
content
gets
locked.
G
B
But
the
number
of
things
that
are
like
that
aren't
aren't
a
whole
lot
of
them
like
norm,
most
normally
formatted
content,
especially
if
it
was
created
in
c
editor
4
will
be
able
to
be
edited
in
ck
editor
five,
some
of
the
things
that
it
doesn't
know
how
to
handle
are
when
they're
like,
when
there
isn't
a
wrapping
paragraph
tag
because
really
old
legacy,
drupal
content,
you
know
it
has
that
automatic
paragraph
break
functionality
where
you
didn't
actually
need
to
put
p
tags
around
stuff.
B
B
G
If
that's
the
most
common
use
case,
though
maybe
it
can
be
automated,
but
I
understand
because
I'm
thinking
now
candidates
should
not
have
to
know
html
to
edit
their
text
right
yeah.
That's
why
I
brought
up
that
question.
So
there
is
a
solution,
but
it's
not
content,
editor-friendly
yeah
and
there
could
be.
B
Possibly
some
contrib
solutions.
I
guess
maybe
we
could
build
something
into
core,
but
it's
risky.
You
know
like.
B
I
don't
think
it's
something
that
we
could
assume
to
do,
but
something
like
a
like
a
auto
pu
remover
or
something
like
that
where
it
would
loop
through
all
the
fields
in
the
system
run
the
autop
filter
on
all
of
your
content
and
then
re-save
all
of
the
content
in
the
database
with
the
paragraph
filter
like
applied
because
applying
the
paragraph
filter
adds
all
of
the
p's
right,
and
so
that
would
make
it
so
that
all
of
your
existing
content
would
like
become
retroactively
like
compatible.
B
But
that's
kind
of
a
risky
operation
to
revisions
just
be
doing
revisions,
though
yeah
yeah,
you
could
do
it
with
revisions,
but
there's
lots
of
content
that
uses
filters.
That
isn't
necessarily
something
that
supports
revisions
yeah,
because
it
also
ends
up
in
like
the
descriptions
for
content
types
and
your
views
configurations
and
I'm
not
really
sure
if
we
would
need
to
deal
with
all
those
situations
too,
but
yeah
but
you're
right
yeah,
you
could
do
revisions
or
or
not.
You
could
actually
edit
the
tables
too.
So.
G
Yeah,
my
purpose
when
I
created
that
issue
there
was
that
sure
we
have.
We
have
a
person
that
is,
has
worked
with
ck
editor
before
in
the
team
and
is
comfortable,
but
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
is
being
done
by
our
drupal
brethren
and
we
can
leverage
that
we
can
see
how
much
of
that
can
be
ported
or
yeah
or
cross-border.
Or
what
have
you
yeah
yeah?
G
What
about
the
idea
of
shipping
with
both
libraries
and
allowing
old
content
to
be
edited
with
ckeditor,
four
and
new
content,
with
the
creators
of
five
and
then
deprecating
ck
editor?
For
in
backdrop,
two.
B
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
we
we
should
consider
it.
You
know
that
that
we
should
we
should
look
into
that
option
and
do
the
same
thing
as
some
other
things
where
we
would
turn
on
seek
editor
5
module
by
default
turn
off
sequential
4
module,
and
this
is
like
on
out
of
box
installs
you'd
get
five,
but
for
existing
installs
you'd,
probably
continue
using
four.
Maybe
we'd
throw
a
notice
up
on
the
status
report.
B
C
B
Yeah,
I'm
excited
about
that.
I
was
really
frustrated
by
seek
editor's
architectural
decisions,
but
greg
kind
of
like
what
you
had
mentioned
is
that
the
relationship
between
ck
editor
and
the
drupal
folks
is
really
pretty
good
and,
like
I
personally
also
like
think
you're
you're
implying,
I
was
part
of
the
team
that
puts
it
into
drupal
in
the
first
place,
and
so
like
I've
had
dinner
with
the
ck
source
people
and
talk
to
them
on
a
first
name
basis
with
them.
B
B
You
know-
and
there
was
the
same
thing
where
seek
editor
4
was
in
many
ways,
architected
for
drupal
8,
that
there
were
certain
things
like
the
way
the
images
are
handled
in
ck
editor
was
made
for
drupal,
and
so
I
feel
like
that.
Same
sort
of
collaboration
is
happening
again
here,
where
drupal
had
some
pretty
major
problems
same
things
that
we
did
and
seek.
Editor
has
been
accommodating
and
helpful
to
facilitate
those
needs.
B
So,
but
I'm
excited
about
just
the
general
direction
of
ck
editor
five.
I
like
that.
I
like
not
hijacking
the
right
click.
I
like
the
not
using
modals
all
over
the
place
table
management
is
way
better.
It
has
a
markdown
syntax,
not
like
you
can
paste
markdown
but
like
if
you
do
like
you
know,
star
space,
it
automatically
says
that's
a
bulleted
list.
If
you
do
hash
sign,
start
typing.
It's
like
that's
an
h1
two
hash
signs,
that's
an
h2.
B
It
does
all
of
those
things
where
I
mean
a
lot
of
other
platforms,
even
like
google
docs
has
adopted
this
right
like
shorthand
for
like
really
quickly
converting
markdown
syntax
into
html,
just
by
typing
it.
So
I'm
very
excited
about
a
lot
of
those
major
enhancements
that
that
that
it
could
bring
to
the
table.
G
Yeah,
I
think
we
we
even
have
a
an
issue
in
the
backdrops
doc
q
for
enabling
markup
filter,
so
the
benefits
for
with
adopting
five
would
be
multiple
like
for,
and
also
I
sort
of
like
see
that
there's
some
some
kind
of
editor
war
in
the
world-
and
I
guess
gutenberg-
has
won
over
wordpress
and
ck.
Editor
needs
to
catch
up,
because
I
wasn't
aware
of
that
too
recently.
G
But
they
have
enterprise
versions
which
are
paid
versions
which
allow
multiple
people
to
collaborate
on
the
site,
collaborative
editing,
yeah
yeah,
which
is
a
valid
use
case
for
people
that
want
to
get
a
license
and
do
that
for
bigger
sites
and
stuff.
So
that
I
guess
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
they're
being
accommodating,
because
drupal
is
a
big
market.
It's
not
a
small
market
right,
so
yeah
cool.
B
Yeah,
okay,
well,
that's
kind
of
where,
where
I
what
I
had
to
say
about
seek
editor,
I
think
that
we
should
like
start
bringing
that
back
to
the
forefront,
I'd
really
kind
of
been
delaying
any
activity
on
it
because
it
didn't
seem
like
there
was
a
real,
clear
direction
because
it
didn't
seem
like
moving
to
five
was
viable.
Now
I
think
it
might
be,
and
staying
within
seek
editor
instead
of
moving
to
another
editor.
B
Also,
just
like
gives
us
a
lot
of
clarity.
You
know
in
our
direction,
rather
than
rehashing
like
an
entire
editor
evaluation
all
over
again,
although
the
new
version
of
sequential
5,
we
will
need
to
like
rewrite
our
plugins
for
like
image
and
link
handling,
because
the
syntax
is
is
different.
So
it's
not
trivial.
B
Okay,
welcome
tim.
Do
you
have
anything
that
you
want
to
add
before
we
move
on
to
the
next
kind
of
category?
Okay,
I'm
good
thanks!
B
Well,
those
are
kind
of
the
things
that
I
had
slated
for
today
and
from
the
last
agenda,
we've
got
issue:
5245
indigozella's
phpcs
work
that
she's
working
on
to
make
it
so
that
we
can
get
syntax
validation
on
all
new
pull
requests.
B
There
hasn't
been
any
updates
on
this
issue
in
a
long
time,
but
she
laid
out
like
we
have
this
problem,
that
she
has
this
proof
of
concept
that
adds
syntax
validation
right
now,
but
it's
using
some
legacy
code
that
needs
to
be
updated
and
it's
pulling
from
like
a
strange
location,
she
laid
out
three
options.
B
One
is
we
live
with
outdated
version
of
phpcs
for
now
version,
1.5
or
number
two.
We
create
an
independent
repository
for
only
the
coding
sniffs
compatible
with
the
new
version
use
that
in
our
github
actions
and
then
start
adding
validators
like
one
at
a
time
in
the
new
repository
or
option,
three
fix
everything
in
the
backdrop,
coder
review
module
and
then
use
that
as
the
basis
for
our
checks.
B
She
says
the
benefit
of
having
it
in
our
workflow
is
great
enough
that
we
should
prioritize
getting
something
in
sooner
rather
than
later,
which
means
option
number
one
use
the
outdated
version
or
option
number
two
create
a
new
repository
that
doesn't
have
very
many
validators
in
it
and
then
iteratively
add
the
validators
to
the
new
repository.
B
B
I
would
eliminate
like
half
of
the
coding
issues,
so
so
I'm
in
favor
of
doing
that,
as
as
the
approach
and
I'll
post
a
comment
after
this
meeting,
but
does
anyone
else
have
thoughts
or
anything
to
add
on
that?
Okay?
B
Okay,
let's
see
so
we
don't
have
anything
on
the
agenda
for
the
next
milestone.
Unless
someone
wants
to
bring
something
up
for
one
dot,
20
dot.
B
Two
yeah
looks
like
our
agenda:
isn't
isn't
actually
updated
yet
here,
because
I
have
1.20.1
yeah
1.20.1
php
8
support
we
completed
we
have
like.
Not
only
do
we
have
all
tests
passing
on
php
eight.
B
All
tests
are
currently
being
run
against
php
eight
right
now,
so
we
have
right
now,
five,
three
seven
four,
I
think
and
and
8.0
so
now
we're
running
the
test
against
three
branches
of
php
on
every
pull
request,
which
is
a
huge
accomplishment,
huge
thanks
to
indigo
zella,
who
really
spearheaded
all
the
updates
there
and
got
us
like
really
really
far
along
there,
not
to
mention
the
github
actions,
work
that
you
did.
B
B
B
B
This
issue
is
a
lot
about
making
it
so
the
out-of-box
backdrop
experience
is
a
lot
better.
I
think
this
is
the
one
yeah.
This
is
like
planning
on
adding
a
card
content
type
which
has
its
path
hidden,
so
that
you
don't
have
individual
node
pages,
but
then,
on
top
of
that,
it's
also
now
talking
about
like
changing
the
way
that
the
home
page
looks
and
putting
some
default
cards
out
of
the
box
onto
the
home
page.
B
On
a
new
backdrop
install
I
haven't
been
checking
in
on
this,
but
there's
a
lot
of
activity
in
the
past
week.
Even
tim,
you've
got
a
hand
in
this
every
now
and
then
is
there
anything
you'd
like
to
say
about
it.
D
No
and
I'm
the
advocate
for
it,
I
I
think
most
people
are
in
support
of
this.
There
hasn't
been
like
there's
been
a
number
of
comments
in
the
last
week,
but
not
actually
movement
on
the
issue,
but
we
had
about
a
month
ago
we
had
a
full
ux
design
meeting
where
we
talked
about
this,
and
the
next
stage
is
really
me
updating
the
pull
request
to
reply
reflect
the
feedback
from
that.
D
Indigozello
was
asking
sort
of
what
the
blocker
was
on
this
issue
and,
in
my
view
the
blocker's
just
been
me
having
the
time
to
take
the
feedback,
I've
gotten
and
create
another
pull
request
for
another
round
of
feedback.
So
that's
for
that.
B
Great
okay,
so
next
issue,
we've
got
is
add,
display
settings
for
the
book.
Nav
book
module
navigation
issue
1976..
I
don't
see
an
advocate
on
this.
One
jen
opened
it
a
long
time
ago,
but
herb
herb
duel
filed
a
pull
request.
Just
two
weeks
ago.
B
That
looks
like
it's
pretty
complete
like
in
terms
of
adding
this
functionality,
and
so
this
issue
doesn't
seem
to
have
an
advocate,
but
it
does
seem
to
have
a
pull
request
and
is
fairly
straightforward,
and
so
I
think
that's
how
it
got
that
milestone
is
hoping
that
this
would
be
a
real
easy
win
book
pages,
they're,
really
pretty
simple,
that
there's
the
content
of
the
node
and
then
the
book
navigation
ends
up
down
at
the
bottom.
B
You
know
for
like
go
up
to
the
parent
chapter
or
to
the
next
page,
and
this
just
makes
it
so
that
you
can
move
the
book
navigation
in
the
display
settings
for
the
fields
which
seems
like
a
really
obvious
and
beneficial
enhancement,
so
that
pull
request
currently
needs
review.
Both
code.
G
Let's
see
also
by
the
way,
sorry,
my
my
only
concern,
which
I
said
like
in
the
comment
thing
is
that
whether
this
should
be
per
book
settings
or
global
settings.
So
I
would
appreciate
some
feedback
from
others
on
this
because,
as
it's
built
now,
it's
built
as
a
one
thing
for
every
book.
B
B
greg
looks
like
this
is
your
issue
as
a
follow-up.
I
think
this
is.
This
also
doesn't
have
an
advocate
on
it,
but.
G
Well,
it's
something
it's
a
task
that
we
need
to
get
done
because
it
was
added
in
the
previous
release
and
it
has
sub
tasks,
which
is
basically
add
more
things
that
we
want
to
collect.
G
So
certain
things
like
themes
being
enabled
which
will
sort
of
like
unblock
or
give
us
some
insight
for
other
issues
that
we
are
contemplating,
whether
or
what
to
do
with
those
issues.
So
yeah,
I'm
not
directly
advocating
for
that.
The
issue
that
I'm
advocating
for
is
10
10
40,
which
I'm
not
sure
it's
in
this.
The
list.
G
B
I
think
this
I
imagine
this
new
issue
is
trying
to
sidestep
some
of
the
problems
from
the
existing
issue.
31
68,
the
separate
checking
yeah,
and
so
what's
the
it
would
be
helpful
to
put
a
little
bit
more
scope
in
this
issue
with
with
a
direction
that
does
avoid
those
problems
and
I'm
not
because
even
going
back
to
that
other
issue,
I
can't
remember
what
the
lowest
conflict
approach
would
be.
G
G
Was
about
separating
it
from
checking
for
updates,
but
that's
a
separate
issue
number
like
this
specific
is
enable
it
in
the
next
release,
but
enable
it
in
an
ethical
way
and
decide
whether
it's
going
to
be
opting
or
opt-out
polish
polish
various
things
in
the
ui
things
like
that.
So
I
don't
think
it's
a
like.
The
basic
task
is
very
small,
which
can
be
done
in
a
day
like
enable
the
module
by
default,
but
we
need,
but
we
need
to
make
decisions
right.
How
do
we
go
about
doing
it?
That's
the
thing
yeah.
B
Yeah
and
you're
right
that
like,
if,
if
we
just
made
it
an
opt-out
system,
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
visibility.
That's
in
telemetry
already.
You
know
it
adds
its
own
reports
page.
It
tells
you
what
data
is
being
sent.
It
puts
something
on
the
status
report,
page
telling
you
that
it's
reporting
data,
so
it
being
on
it
it.
If
you
poke
around
the
interface,
it's
very
clear
that
it's
reporting
data
and
what
data
is
being
reported
so
having
it
be
opt
out
would
be
viable.
B
I
think,
although
it
does
still
make
me
nervous
that
that's
just
it
just
doesn't
fit
with
the
normal
pattern
of
software
installs,
that's
pretty
typical
that
you
get
asked
if
you
want
to
report
data.
After
after
doing
a
new
install.
D
I've
been
doing
some
research,
and
I
mean
I
think
it
definitely.
Arguments
are
made
both
way.
For
me,
the
big
thing
is
a
policy
I
I
feel
like.
D
If
we're
going
to
make
it
opt
out,
we
need
to
have
a
real,
clear
policy
in
advance
of
doing
that,
and
so
that
might
be
the
blocker
is
is,
and
it
seems
that
sounds
like
it's
a
pmc
issue
and
I
think
the
pmc
just
hasn't
been
active
enough
to
act
on
that,
and
maybe
we
need
to
kick
start
that,
because
some
sort
of
a
policy
would
help
us.
B
Yeah
because
that
you're
right
that
that
would
really
answer
that
question
for
us
yeah,
because
there
there's
a
lot
of
questions
about
the
user
interface
and
like
putting
something
scary
during
the
install
process
and
yeah.
We
need
to.
We
need
to
figure
that
out
and
also
what
we
do
for
existing
sites.
So.
D
B
Okay,
let's
see
we're
almost
that
time.
I'll
just
mention
the
last
issue
here:
issue
50
44,
adding
additional
css
classes
to
regions
for
flexible
layout
templates,
so
yeah,
I'm
not
quite
sure
who
the
advocate
is
oh
on
this
one,
either.
B
It
has
a
pull
request
that
needs
work
that
was
found
the
herb
duel
but
yeah.
This
has
to
do
with
the
flexible
layout
builder
and
just
adding
some
additional
functionality
there
to
make
it.
So
you
could
give
your
regions
names,
but
I
don't
think
we
really.
I
don't
see
anything
any
real
updates
there.
This
week,
okay.
G
Well,
I
think
that
we'll
just
call
it
there.
That's
I
just
happened
just
really
quick,
because
issue
1040
is
what
I'm
advocating
for.
I
added
the
milestone
candidate
minor
tag.
I
need
someone
because
it
can't
be
me,
can
be
the
same
person
because
I'm
advocating
for
it
to
actually
add
the
milestone
and
then
maybe
we
can
discuss
it
in
one
of
the
next.
B
G
B
Sure
I
think
yeah
I'm
going
to
post
a
comment
that
I'll
I
moved
it
into
121
just
so
that
we
can
discuss
it.
G
B
Okay,
all
right
yeah
that
would
be
that'll,
be
a
fun
little
rabbit
holding
around
next
yep
week.
Thanks
all
right.
Well,
thanks
everybody
for
joining
this
meeting,
and
thank
you,
everyone
out
there
who
watches
and
all
of
our
contributors
that
work
on
backdrop
in
big
and
small
ways,
your
work
is
always
appreciated.
So
thank
you.
Everybody
we'll
catch!
You
guys
on
the
internet,.