Working Group Minutes/EWG 2015-01-26


IRC nick Real name
pnorman Paul Norman
RichardF Richard Fairhurst
TomH Tom Hughes
zere Matt Amos


  • Routing branch
    • zere fixed some issues, but there's still one remaining.
    • Branch as a whole needs a thorough review
  • Facebook / MS Live login
    • pnorman raised the issue of getting this branch merged.
    • It has been inactive for a long time, pending legal review, but apparently that's all okay.


17:33:51 <zere> minutes of the last meeting: - if anything needs changing, please let me know
17:34:26 <zere> i don't think we have any matters arising from previous meetings, and the only agenda item is the routing branch. so let's start with that.
17:34:32 <zere> #topic routing branch
17:35:22 <RichardF> thank you for the PR - duly merged!
17:35:53 <pnorman> jsrouting has hung around for a long time
17:37:17 <zere> there's some discussion going on here: and, afaik, only one outstanding issue
17:38:29 <zere> and i think the last one is something to do with client-side routing... which was clearly invented by a sadist to confuse the uninitiated
17:38:40 <RichardF> definitely
17:39:02 <RichardF> more seriously... am I right in thinking the client-side routing was done by jfire? might be worth pinging him
17:39:39 <zere> yeah, and if i get stuck i will, but i think there's benefit for me in banging my head against it until understanding develops.
17:39:52 <RichardF> you're a braver man than I am, Gunga Din (but yes, makes sense)
17:39:58 <zere> this sort of knowledge being akin to pearls...
17:40:20 <RichardF> I'm excited about it going live, though. I think it'll make a big difference to the quality of data in OSM.
17:40:34 <zere> TomH: i know you've not had a chance yet to do a full review, but is there anything i/we can do to make that job quicker or easier for you?
17:41:13 <TomH> eeew
17:41:25 <TomH> what on earth did you do to the drop down
17:41:58 <zere> tried to make firefox display it more like chrome (i.e: not like a Motif widget from the 80s)
17:42:40 <TomH> see to me it now looks more like motif circa 1990 ;-)
17:42:45 <zere> if it looks weird, then a screenshot would help - it looked okay on my FF35 (except the down-arrow which is apparently a known, unfixed issue)
17:44:17 <TomH>
17:44:26 <TomH> ah right it was the arrow I meant
17:44:33 <RichardF> - FF Mac left, Chrome Mac right
17:45:14 <TomH> but really my concern is that it's different to every other one on the site
17:46:59 <pnorman> Is the differing UI a blocker?
17:47:53 <zere> TomH: it looked like that before, on my FF at least
17:48:37 <TomH> oh, mine didn't
17:48:42 <TomH> playing with it now anyway
17:51:44 <zere> okay, i have a fix
17:52:08 <TomH> urgh div align=right
17:52:13 * TomH has flashbacks
17:55:23 <zere> RichardF:
17:56:23 <RichardF> merged, thank you :)
17:56:38 <zere> TomH: what's wrong with align=right? it would be more helpful if instead of "urgh div align=right" you explained why that's a bad thing and what would be a better alternative.
17:56:58 <TomH> well we stopped doing layout with HTML attributes when CSS was invented ;-)
17:57:25 <TomH> sorry that wasn't really a review just something I noticed while playing with CSS in firebuf
17:59:14 <zere> align=right == text-align:right; in CSS?
17:59:23 <TomH> depends
18:02:26 <RichardF> a very quick fiddle with the Chromium inspector suggests you can move the <select> into the div, then add a float:right on the submit button
18:02:59 <RichardF> and the div can be class='line' rather than width='100%'
18:03:11 <RichardF> (.line has width: 100% anyway)
18:05:58 <pnorman> So there anything else to discuss about it in the meeting?
18:06:57 <RichardF> not from me - I'm happy with it
18:07:32 <pnorman> I have another feature in PR for AOB when we get there
18:13:43 <zere> okay. doesn't seem like there's any more to discuss here.
18:13:49 <zere> #topic AoB
18:13:56 <zere> pnorman: what did you want to talk about?
18:14:11 <pnorman> #153,, facebook/MS live
18:14:17 <pnorman> It's also languished
18:15:39 <zere> yup. imho, probably the least important feature ever, but i guess there are a few people who would benefit from it.
18:16:09 <zere> but i don't see the point in diverting any effort towards it until more important things like routing have been merged.
18:16:27 <zere> what does everyone else thing?
18:16:34 <zere> s/thing/think/
18:16:38 <pnorman> It's significant in some communities and I'm concerned that it's also just sat there for months without comment
18:18:16 <zere> well, sure, but some have sat there for > 2 years (e.g:
18:18:54 <zere> the issue is that things don't move forward on their own (Newton, and all that), they have to have someone driving them.
18:23:03 <pnorman> bringing it back to EWG and developing development, is the level of effort to drive a change an issue? The effort required is above and beyond replying to comments and issues raised
18:25:13 <zere> yeah, it's an issue. the question is, in the absence of infinite free time and magic developer-elves, is it an intrinsic difficulty or one that could be alleviated?
18:26:33 <zere> TomH: any ideas - you're closer to this than any of us?
18:27:15 <pnorman> is it we need more developers on code review specifically?
18:31:06 <zere> it's not clear to me what a review really means anyway - what should be looked-for, what's best practice, etc...
18:31:27 <zere> at least, on this frontend JS nonsense ;-)
18:32:23 <pnorman> we could use the routing or FB as an example. what steps do they need to go through before they're merged?
18:41:37 <zere> looks like discussion for this has petered out. was there anything else anyone wanted to talk about?
18:42:29 <pnorman> Can we put it on the agenda for next week? If I don't know the steps a feature branch needs to go through to get merged, I'm guessing most potential developers don't either
18:49:16 <zere> 1. PR, 2. ???, 3. Merged, 4. PROFIT!!! ;-)
18:49:33 <zere> thanks to everyone for coming, and hope to see you next week.