bower-meeting-2013-04-12

13:21 danheberden: distilled my ideas into a gist https://gist.github.com/danheberden/279afd863b3144a64885
13:22 kevva`off is now known as kevva
13:23 ccverg has left ()
13:24 satazor has joined ([email protected])
13:28 zz_luisbug is now known as luisbug
13:32 marcooliveira: brb
13:32 marcooliveira has left IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
13:33 wibblymat_ has left IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
13:44 paulmillar has joined (4d789b64@gateway/web/freenode/ip.77.120.155.100)
13:49 addyosmani: bowerrrr powerrr.
13:49 paulmillar: RRR
13:49 addyosmani: left a quick comment on your gist danheberden 
13:49 paul_irish: add anything you want into the agenda https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1mvyvLn8gpzIjksTutNeSKzbee6HhQ01veFYdqTU4fv0/edit?pli=1#
13:51 danheberden: addyosmani: gracias
13:51 paul_irish: and so did necolas
13:51 paul_irish: oh boy
13:52 paulmillar: just wanted to propose one thing: something for determining actual scripts / styles / files in package
13:52 paulmillar: a) store just relevant stuff in bower storages
13:52 paulmillar: less traffic and stuff
13:52 paulmillar: b) favour builders a-la grunt and brunch
13:53 addyosmani: worth adding to the agenda for discussion? or next agenda if today's is full?
13:53 passy has joined ([email protected])
13:54 necolas: isn't that already covered with 'ignore' and a publishin gmodel?
13:54 paulmillar: you will just need to execute `bower install` and then e.g. Grunt will be able to determine what files are actually used without need to specify it in config which is a fucking pain
13:56 necolas: actually used by what?
13:56 wibblymat_ has joined ([email protected])
13:56 addyosmani: hey mat
13:56 satazor: hey guys
13:56 wibblymat_: Evening all!
13:57 necolas: if you're talking about postinstall scripts…we dont want to do that
13:57 paulmillar: nah
13:57 passy: Hey!
13:57 paulmillar: something like
13:57 marcooliveira has joined ([email protected])
13:57 paulmillar: bower.json: {files: ["script.js", "style.css"]]}
13:57 sindresorhus: hey
13:57 paulmillar: component(1) has this
13:57 marcooliveira: back guys
13:57 paulmillar: it’s easy to integrate it with builder
13:57 necolas: component(1) has an opinion on the transport and build process you use
13:58 paulmillar: yes thats why its shitty
13:58 necolas: bower does have 'main'
13:58 sindresorhus: it's always easier when you control the whole workflow
13:58 sindresorhus: but it's a huge opt-in
13:59 nnisi has left IRC (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
13:59 danheberden: awww yeah 5pm EDT
13:59 danheberden: i added a comment to https://gist.github.com/danheberden/279afd863b3144a64885
13:59 addyosmani: woooo
13:59 jsoverson has joined ([email protected])
13:59 paulmillar: yep that was my point. heard bower had this but what bower packages actually use it? like 2% of all?
14:00 danheberden: necolas: do you have to jet for a bit?
14:00 sindresorhus: paulmillar: that's where evanglism comes in
14:00 btford: hello all
14:00 danheberden: meeting notes: bit.ly/bower-meeting-notes
14:00 addyosmani: lo brian
14:00 sindresorhus: almost no-one uses `ignore` either, which makes most components way bigger than they would have to be
14:01 desandro has joined ([email protected])
14:01 danheberden: alright lets get on track with the agenda - i'd like to defer some of the AI coverage
14:01 danheberden: until necolas is avilable
14:01 danheberden: (if we can wait that long)
14:01 addyosmani: that sounds reasonable
14:01 danheberden: but to start with, i want to bring up the meeting time
14:01 paul_irish: ok
14:01 danheberden: is this the best for everyone? Should we re-send out the form for when attendance is possible?
14:01 danheberden: namely, it's not good for necolas and benschwarz
14:02 satazor: me neither
14:02 marcooliveira: I would like if it was a bit earlier
14:02 addyosmani: I'd be happier for earlier, but whatever is the most optimal for the majority of the group is fine
14:02 danheberden: ok, so how about this - i'll resend out the form
14:02 danheberden: and we'll see if we can find a better time?
14:02 marcooliveira: satazor would also prefer earlier
14:02 marcooliveira: sure
14:02 danheberden: ok cool
14:02 satazor: sgtm
14:02 danheberden: the only problem is earlier ruins it for benschwarz
14:02 paul_irish: I think we'll lose benschwarz in the new time, but i don't know how else to work around that
14:02 danheberden: but someone's gonna lose here
14:02 danheberden: hehe
14:02 danheberden: darn australians
14:02 danheberden: :p
14:03 satazor: maybe send the form results to bower so it can find the most suitable hour (version) 
14:03 marcooliveira: omg
14:03 marcooliveira: haha.. you're so geek :P
14:03 necolas: ok, im free for the moment. my meeting hasnt started yet.
14:03 danheberden: necolas: awesome
14:03 danheberden: in that case, lets hop to the spec related points
14:03 danheberden: before we lose you
14:03 danheberden: first: "bower_components"
14:04 danheberden: satazor: did you find a name you like better? did you get convinved?
14:04 danheberden: :D
14:04 necolas: resolved as bower_components i think
14:04 satazor: yes I am
14:04 addyosmani: unless I was mistaken, it looked like most were fine with current
14:04 danheberden: ok boom done
14:04 danheberden: so i made comments about a specific spec point here: https://gist.github.com/danheberden/279afd863b3144a64885
14:05 danheberden: namely, i wanted to get buy-in that a) bower.io shouldn't build stuff
14:05 luisbug is now known as zz_luisbug
14:05 danheberden: b) that we should put the power into the user's hands if possible
14:05 danheberden: c) use bower to help advocate best-practice in app development
14:05 zz_luisbug is now known as luisbug
14:05 danheberden: the details of that we can hash out, but i'm curious how y'all feel about that
14:05 addyosmani: I'm down with those. c) of course requires further definition, but yeah.
14:05 wibblymat_: I agree with a), b) and c) but think your solution needs work :)
14:06 danheberden: wibblymat_: wha?! no i'm always 100% right the first try
14:06 danheberden: :p
14:06 btford: I agree that bower shouldn't build, but there should be some guidelines about how bower fits into building
14:06 necolas: yep, bower does no building but can run prepublish scripts
14:06 addyosmani: +1 btford
14:06 danheberden: necolas: can you elaborate on that for me?
14:06 btford: Right now, there are 2 main approaches: build, then publish file.js and file.min.js
14:06 danheberden: i dont understand what you mean exactly in briefing your comment so quickly
14:06 sindresorhus: necolas: we also should have stories on how Bower would fit into eg a RJS environment
14:06 necolas: "bower, before you publish, run the command i use to generate my assets for distribution"
14:07 btford: and apprach 2 is throw all the build stuff in the component
14:07 danheberden: necolas: why does bower need to publish?
14:07 danheberden: i should clarify, i'd like the server to do the work of checking for new versions
14:07 danheberden: and caching that
14:07 necolas: danheberden: as part of the hosting of packages
14:08 danheberden: necolas: so if we could get away from that (possibly) then we could just, like, let people commit awesome bower.json files
14:08 danheberden: ya?
14:08 danheberden: and obviously register them initially
14:08 wibblymat_: necolas: So you're saying that bower doesn't do building, but you can tell it what you DO use for builidng and get it to run that?
14:08 necolas: we shouldnt make people check build products into their repos
14:08 necolas: i thought we already all agreed on hosting packages on the server like npm does
14:08 wibblymat_: Yes
14:09 danheberden: necolas: i'm talking about two different things
14:09 sindresorhus: we did
14:09 danheberden: or we are
14:09 necolas: in which case, prepublish is necessary
14:09 satazor: i think you guys are not talking about the same thing..
14:09 btford: Yes. +1 necolas
14:09 danheberden: a) the server will host b) the server will check [in some kind of sane way] for new commits/tags
14:09 danheberden: so that you don't _have_ to republish all the time
14:09 danheberden: people aren't required to put built pieces in their repo, no
14:09 necolas: jquery project would just configure bower to run "grunt" and tell bower which folder to zip up and publish to the server
14:09 wibblymat_: necolas: But does bower have to do the prepublish? Couldn't you also have a grunt task that does your build and then uses bower to publish the result?
14:10 danheberden: but we can't expect them to hvae grunt to build it or something
14:10 satazor: what? danheberden I don't see it that way
14:10 satazor: danheberden: there are two models, register and publish
14:10 satazor: the publish are manually done by the user
14:10 necolas: danheberden: there is no way but republishing for hosted stuff
14:10 satazor: register on the other hand is the thing that checks for new versions JUST TO VALIDATE
14:10 necolas: wibblymat_: yep.
14:10 danheberden: ok, necolas, i'm finally understanding what you're talkinga bout
14:11 danheberden: you're talking about publishing built versions to the server
14:11 danheberden: in conjunction with the package
14:11 danheberden: or wrt it
14:11 necolas: yeah, register is just a pointer to a git endpoint. but publish would send files to the bower server
14:11 danheberden: necolas: so, i think offering a hook in that regard (for whatever it might be)
14:11 danheberden: is totally acceptable
14:11 necolas: npm-style
14:11 satazor: yes necolas
14:11 sindresorhus: yes
14:11 danheberden: also, grunt could have a plugin to do that
14:11 addyosmani: a hook would be
14:12 danheberden: so `grunt release` or whatever does all you need
14:12 danheberden: either way
14:12 danheberden: so yeah, we're fine with bower having prepublish hooks 'n stuff?
14:12 sindresorhus: yes
14:12 addyosmani: yeah
14:12 wibblymat_: Yep
14:12 danheberden: hotness
14:12 sindresorhus: already a ticket for it
14:12 passy: yep
14:12 necolas: yeah, grunt release would just run 'bower publish' or something
14:12 danheberden: so, about this gist then
14:13 danheberden: while i don't think bower should, like, build stuff itself
14:13 danheberden: (obviously)
14:13 necolas: perhaps the example in the gist wasn't ideal. that example is doable with what we have now
14:13 danheberden: i think it's cool to expose pieces that are avilable
14:13 addyosmani: could you elaborate danheberden? 
14:13 danheberden: necolas: i just didn't understand given the context
14:13 necolas: that's how i am building the 'suit' toolkit
14:13 danheberden: addyosmani: in the gist, i just want people to say "hey, i have these pieces" so that the user can be informed
14:13 danheberden: i don't want bower to actually build anything or whatever
14:13 addyosmani: right
14:13 addyosmani: agreed
14:14 necolas: right, but those pieces are actually just dependencies
14:14 danheberden: it has the con, as necolas brought up, of messy .json files
14:14 danheberden: necolas: yes, but, like, we can't force authors to chnage their package sturcture
14:14 danheberden: just like we can't have them commit built versions
14:14 necolas: the example of custom builds of modernizr is probably a better use case?
14:14 danheberden: so if my package is src/pieceA.js, src/pieceB.js
14:14 danheberden: multiple bower.json files with dependencies is a nigihtmare
14:14 danheberden: necolas: sure? or bootstrap?
14:14 sindresorhus: npm has bundledDependencies, but Isaac has been clear about not liking it.
14:14 addyosmani: if we can avoid that messy scenario it would be ideal.
14:15 danheberden: necolas: in my latest comment
14:15 danheberden: on that gist
14:15 danheberden: i mentioned just declaring pieces inline
14:15 wibblymat_: With the publish model you can publish seperate components from the same repo
14:15 necolas: yeah
14:15 sindresorhus: wibblymat_: indeed, one of the reason we wanted it
14:16 necolas: we just need to work out how best to configure each of those publishings
14:16 danheberden: wibblymat_: necolas: so we want people to also be able to publish built versions of each permutation?
14:16 sindresorhus: though, I still think it should be in separate repos, it doesn't always work for people
14:16 necolas: bower publish lib/component1 …should that dir have a bower.json in it?
14:16 danheberden: that is, modernizr would publish permutations based on 158 options?
14:16 addyosmani: should be, sindresorhus but still enough want to keep them in just one
14:16 peter123 has joined ([email protected])
14:17 danheberden: things like jQueryUI makes sense to have multiple bower.json files
14:17 satazor: sindresorhus: I also think that too, unfortunately thats not how it is in the real world :(
14:17 necolas: modernizr is slightly different, but yeah, a collection of feature tests could be different components
14:17 danheberden: but, like, modular components of a whole "thing" - oy
14:17 necolas: that's basically when component(1) expects
14:17 sindresorhus: satazor: i realize that, but we can be clear in the docs what we recommend as best practise ;)
14:17 satazor: I think that danheberden is good and can be explored, but still needs to evolve
14:17 satazor: solution*
14:17 danheberden: lol i *can* be explored
14:17 marcooliveira: haha
14:17 paul_irish: oh boy
14:17 addyosmani: explore all the dan!
14:17 satazor: ahahah
14:18 sindresorhus: lol
14:18 necolas: if we designed this whole thing to deal with the "real world", it would be like the homer simpson car
14:18 passy: sindresorhus: +1 on documenting best practices better
14:18 danheberden: i worry about us requiring people to publish all these possible builds
14:18 marcooliveira: necolas: love it! :P
14:18 satazor: as I have been saying I think we need to make a small team and discuss this properly
14:18 danheberden: i think we can put the power into the user
14:18 addyosmani: as do I
14:18 danheberden: you want pieces of it? great!
14:18 danheberden: go build it
14:18 danheberden: or concat it
14:18 danheberden: or whatever
14:18 satazor: to find a good solution to cover rjs, cjs, modernizr, jquery
14:18 danheberden: and here's how
14:18 satazor: etc
14:19 danheberden: ok, lets keep talkinga bout this in the issues/that-gist-maybe
14:19 danheberden: whatever
14:19 necolas: we use bower at twitter with rjs and jquery
14:19 danheberden: i feel we have more direction taking shape
14:19 marcooliveira: even though I'm not fully on board with this "main" thingy, I also agree that trying to enforce "best practices" on this case will not work for too many people
14:19 danheberden: and i'll try to distill all of the feedback into something more digestable
14:19 danheberden: i agree the word "main" isn't as nice as "components"
14:19 satazor: danheberden: yes maybe make an AI to setup a separate session meeting with key people?
14:19 necolas: i feel like this issue is a layer above the core bower tool
14:19 peter123 has left IRC (Client Quit)
14:19 danheberden: but i can make an issue for that
14:19 danheberden: satazor: aye
14:20 necolas: basically, the data that we're talking about representing is never going to be used by bower
14:20 sindresorhus: `main` is still too vague
14:20 btford: I'd like to see ES6 modules (or a transpiler for them or something)
14:20 petermichaux has joined (4b9c7c22@gateway/web/freenode/ip.75.156.124.34)
14:20 necolas: so it can be layered on separately
14:20 danheberden: necolas: but other tools might use bower to expose it is my point
14:20 addyosmani: can someone give me edit on the doc? paul has to run.
14:20 btford: One issue with RJS is interoperability
14:20 danheberden: and we have a chance to declare that
14:20 necolas: danheberden: of course
14:20 danheberden: addyosmani: i shared the whole folder with you i thought?
14:20 necolas: but we can deal with that interface as a stand-alone problem
14:20 addyosmani: no edit for some reason : /
14:20 passy: `main` also gives the feeling as their can only be one.
14:20 addyosmani: let me try the other acct
14:20 danheberden: addyosmani: "Can Edit"
14:20 addyosmani: weird
14:21 addyosmani: okay
14:21 addyosmani: ignore! i'll figure it out
14:21 danheberden: perhaps too many people on it
14:21 danheberden: ok
14:21 danheberden: desandro: 
14:21 danheberden: logo news you wanna share?
14:21 desandro: Yup :)
14:21 necolas: tbh, it might just be that if you want a custom build of modernizr, you go use the web UI for the foreseeable future
14:21 danheberden: necolas: yeah, hence the 'url' option i listed
14:22 desandro: I settled on a logo http://i.imgur.com/hJyzdSP.png
14:22 sindresorhus: i think the modernizr thing is fairly unique
14:22 necolas: what's URL option? like 'homepage'?
14:22 wibblymat_: desandro: Nice
14:22 necolas: sindresorhus: yeah
14:22 desandro: This treatment is the product of collaboration between Isaac @ Bocoup and I
14:22 danheberden: look! it's a bower bird
14:22 necolas: desandro: can you share isaac's treatment too please?
14:23 desandro: Isaac's: http://i.imgur.com/RS5MKSa.png
14:23 addyosmani: I like it
14:23 danheberden: it will be so nice to have a logo
14:23 passy: Indeed.
14:24 necolas: thanks desandro. you guys have done an amazing job!
14:24 desandro: I tried incorporating Isaac's treatment into what I previously had: see variations in http://i.imgur.com/Z1uuZOR.png
14:24 paulmillr has joined ([email protected])
14:24 danheberden: if anyone is alergic to blue leaves, i'm sorry
14:24 necolas: wow nice
14:24 addyosmani: I actually didn't mind the variation with the blue leaf
14:24 addyosmani: *without
14:24 petermichaux: Is there a plan to build a website for bower where developers can register and manage there packages registered with bower?
14:24 danheberden: so to cover some of the existing AIs (while you all ogle over the logo)
14:25 sindresorhus: petermichaux: not at first, but I'm sure it will come
14:25 danheberden: petermichaux: once we get auth/registration up
14:25 danheberden: that can actually be a possibility
14:25 danheberden: speaking of that server
14:25 addyosmani: petermichaux: there is a plan to expand on the site, but there are a few things that need to be done prior
14:25 addyosmani: ^ yeah. all that
14:25 danheberden: i'm still working to get hosting setup 
14:25 danheberden: necolas and I are on that, so it should be resolved soon
14:25 sindresorhus: yay
14:25 paulmillr has left IRC (Client Quit)
14:25 necolas: can we tie up some logo chat before we move on to other news?
14:25 sindresorhus: yes
14:25 desandro: Blue leaf represent how the Bower bird makes a "presentation" during its mating dance
14:25 btford: I like the logo.
14:26 danheberden: necolas: yeah, i was just adding notes about status
14:26 btford: (I'm done with logo chat now)
14:26 danheberden: i said we can still keep tlakinga bout the logo
14:26 paulmillr has joined ([email protected])
14:26 addyosmani: ITS SO GOOD OMG
14:26 sindresorhus: just need some time admiring both
14:26 necolas: there's something appealing about the bird contained in a shape like the circle
14:27 danheberden: http://danheberden.com/share/aa56.png
14:27 sindresorhus: I agree
14:27 paulmillar has left IRC (Quit: Page closed)
14:27 danheberden: for those that want to see them both more easily
14:27 desandro: Yeah, I gave that a shot as well. But I came back to the un-circle shape because it's easier to spot with the eye
14:27 passy: I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. Both look so amazing.
14:27 desandro: Everything is in a circle now-a-days
14:27 paulmillr: right one is nice
14:27 satazor: I like the second one
14:27 satazor: the right one
14:28 danheberden: ok, maybe we should just stick with this one http://danheberden.com/share/3b7d.png
14:28 passy: The outline kind of matches the serif font better.
14:28 danheberden: since no one seems like like these new logos
14:28 satazor: agree danheberden!
14:28 satazor: ahaah
14:28 marcooliveira: danheberden: love it!
14:28 satazor: jk :P
14:28 wibblymat_: It'll look awesome up there on http://yeoman.io/
14:28 desandro: Both are really good, but I'm confident in going with the non-circly treatment
14:28 paulmillr has left IRC (Client Quit)
14:28 desandro: As for type-treatment, I'll be working on that next
14:28 passy: wibblymat_: Yes!
14:29 addyosmani: sweet
14:29 marcooliveira: personally, I like both :) not strongly opinionated here
14:29 addyosmani: looking forward to seeing the iterations desandro 
14:29 danheberden: isaacdurazo is still around to help out, so if there's any tweaks necessary to get this good for smaller stickers, etc, we have another week or so before we need to actually send this off 
14:29 sindresorhus: I actually prefer the first one. Both are really great. But there something about the left one.
14:29 addyosmani: +1
14:29 paulmillr has joined ([email protected])
14:29 marcooliveira: sindresorhus: the colours look better :)
14:29 marcooliveira: I prefer the left one's colours
14:29 addyosmani: it pops
14:30 desandro: Okay, I can try bringing those colors over to the non-circly version.
14:30 danheberden: desandro: awesome stuff man
14:30 marcooliveira: desandro: that would be cool
14:31 danheberden: isaacdurazo: you too, fantastic ideas
14:31 danheberden: so we ok to move on?
14:31 necolas: the left one feels chrome-y, like when they made their logo simple color shapes
14:31 sindresorhus: Though the eye is nicer on the right
14:31 sindresorhus: Sure
14:31 marcooliveira: I'm cool
14:31 danheberden: we can design by committee after the meeting, too :p
14:31 marcooliveira: sindresorhus: also prefer the eye on the right
14:31 desandro: danheberden: thanks, I'l reach if I get into trouble
14:31 necolas: ok so some other news
14:32 danheberden: so re: hosting, necolas and i should have that figured out
14:32 inavat has joined ([email protected])
14:32 danheberden: in which case, we'll have a server to point bower.io at
14:32 necolas: desandro: please can you continue the logo work and discussion in public, like in that gist you originally created?
14:32 necolas: whatever you and isaac want to do
14:32 desandro: Yes, I will update gist
14:32 danheberden: once we figure out (more necolas todos) if twitter is ok with bower.io, we can point it at github pages for now
14:33 danheberden: necolas: great idea
14:33 necolas: twitter is ok with bower.io
14:33 danheberden: oh, fantastic
14:33 necolas: we're finalizing things, but i think we'll be able to move to the 'bower' org on github
14:33 danheberden: ok great
14:33 danheberden: satazor: did you get your rewrite in a branch on the repo yet?
14:33 necolas: we can operate like angularjs does. "by twitter" etc under the logo
14:34 satazor: yes I did, me and marcooliveira are almost there (architecture)
14:34 sindresorhus: necolas: that's great. It's all we wanted :)
14:34 necolas: and expose the companies that are also supporting and using bower
14:34 danheberden: necolas: cool
14:34 inavat: hello.  I installed node 0.11.0 via nvm, and am trying to use bower.. when I do "bower init" I get  "TypeError: Arguments to path.join must be strings"..  the problematic code seems to be in ~/.nvm/v0.11.0/lib/node_modules/bower/lib/core/manager.js:50
14:34 addyosmani: Thats fantastic.
14:34 satazor: we will start the implementation in the next week
14:34 addyosmani: re: bower org.
14:34 danheberden: inavat: perhaps someone can help you offline with that, we're in the middle of an engineering meeting atm
14:34 danheberden: but we'll be done soon :)
14:34 necolas: if it happens, we'd like to have 'bower.io' owned by twitter and we'll do the primary admin on the bower org.
14:35 addyosmani: I think that's a reasonable ask
14:35 inavat: oh, sorry about that
14:35 necolas: but otherwise, the project could be autonomous
14:35 addyosmani: necolas do you know the rough timeline on org? not important
14:35 addyosmani: but just useful if you have an idea
14:35 danheberden: necolas: i don't know if "primary" matteres or not
14:35 sindresorhus: necolas: works for me
14:35 danheberden: like, you're essential
14:35 danheberden: so, whatevs ;p
14:35 necolas: not yet. it's going through the channels. soon though
14:35 desandro: inavat: I don't believe we support "dev" releases of node like v0.11
14:35 addyosmani: okok
14:35 danheberden: someone put a thing about AMD environment and support on the agenda
14:35 danheberden: so, take it away, person
14:36 addyosmani: the ghost of james burke obvs.
14:36 passy: :D
14:36 inavat: desandro, oh.. I didn't know it was a dev version (nvm doesn't hint to that, and I'm new to the whole node world).  I'll look further into that then, thanks
14:36 wibblymat__ has joined ([email protected])
14:36 necolas: but yeah, i've asked about following that successful model and people are positive about it
14:36 danheberden: necolas: awesome
14:36 danheberden: necolas: you're also already an admin of the org i think
14:36 addyosmani: really appreciate you chasing it up and getting some positive responses so far.
14:36 necolas: twitter also offered to reach out to OSUOSL about hosting solution
14:36 danheberden: it'd be nice to have some non-twitter admins as well, ovbs
14:37 necolas: they host maven central, linux stuff, and are there for OSS
14:37 necolas: danheberden: of course
14:37 wibblymat_ has left IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
14:37 danheberden: and oregon is awesome
14:37 danheberden: go beavs!
14:37 necolas: i know danheberden is also looking into MT hosting
14:37 addyosmani: so..who proposed the AMD item?.. :)
14:38 sindresorhus: how about we check what kind of different offerings we can get then decide on it
14:38 danheberden: sindresorhus: yeah, that's what we're doing
14:38 sindresorhus: k, cool
14:38 necolas: cra is very confident about OSUOSL and wants to help out with that if it's what people want to do
14:38 addyosmani: sounds good
14:38 danheberden: necolas: if that's something that is, like, a desire not just an option
14:38 danheberden: can you start an email thread between us on that?
14:38 danheberden: i'd be curious to hear more
14:39 necolas: no, it's whatever people want and is easier to do. not pushing anything.
14:39 danheberden: ok ok
14:39 danheberden: cool
14:39 necolas: i can definitely start up an email where these options can be hashed out
14:39 danheberden: so it sounds like an imaginary person put down the AMD item in the agenda
14:39 addyosmani: it may have been paul
14:40 wibblymat__: Google Docs needs a "blame" tool
14:40 danheberden: well, to address the point
14:40 danheberden: i think that we can support AMD by documentation
14:40 danheberden: give an example of using bower with r.js, etc
14:40 danheberden: fun stuff
14:40 addyosmani: I agree with that. There's lots of additional tooling that other bits can do to ease that workflow anyway
14:41 desandro: not I - but I have run into a problem with a dependency that has AMD support. If 1 dependency has AMD, and you use require.js, it messes with requiring all the other files
14:41 sindresorhus: danheberden: i think we should do that with the popular solutions people are using.
14:41 desandro: Basically, I have to ensure all my other dependencies have AMD support
14:41 danheberden: sindresorhus: def
14:41 addyosmani: I haven't run into that issue but it sounds like it could happen
14:41 btford: Can we plz champion ES6?
14:41 btford: (modules)
14:41 wibblymat__: Originally I thought "how does a user know that a component is AMD"? But I guess you have to look at the docs for the component to know how to use it anyway,.
14:41 addyosmani: btford it's coming along...slowly.
14:41 btford: I just want something to win
14:41 sindresorhus: btford: how? docs?
14:41 btford: haha
14:41 necolas: desandro: yeah. that's not a bower specific problem, but exposes the fragmentation in the FE
14:41 addyosmani: might still be punted for ES7
14:41 necolas: sucks
14:41 danheberden: desandro: is that something bower can even help with? sounds like a maintainers issue?
14:41 addyosmani: and no one has it implemented
14:42 sindresorhus: addyosmani: no it won't
14:42 btford: There are some ES6 -> AMD transpilers
14:42 necolas: hopefully, people can write modules that don't depend on AMD
14:42 addyosmani: yeah. harmonizr and the like. 
14:42 satazor: desandro: normally people that use amd in a library, have a built file with it
14:42 necolas: because other software can add the define wrapper or whatever
14:42 btford: so you could "theoretically" use some version of proposed ES6 modules
14:42 petermichaux: addyosmani: what might be punted to ES7?
14:42 satazor: that have everything concataned and loaded with almond
14:42 danheberden: god all these tools
14:43 addyosmani: well there's traceur and a bunch of transpilers, but i think traction won't happen till at least one vendor has a decent implementation of modules in place
14:43 desandro: aaaaaactually, this was just 1 instance of the issue, so let's ignore my problem until I am more familiar with it
14:43 btford: addy: yeah, probs
14:43 addyosmani: petermichaux: modules. though, last update i got on those was a few weeks back
14:43 addyosmani: i'll check with alex russell and find out.
14:43 btford: sorry, the ES6 modules might be a bit off topic
14:43 satazor: desandro: if you want to keep using amd you use the source code of the library, otherwise use the built file as a regular file
14:43 necolas: anyway, yes, we should document different workflows and allows tools to appear to automate things where appropriate
14:43 addyosmani: +1 ^
14:44 sindresorhus: necolas: yup
14:44 necolas: that's what i love about yo, karma, and grunt. the adapters and plugins around them are the result of great core tools
14:44 petermichaux: addyosmani: David Herman mentioned on Twitter there is a big modules meeting in May. https://twitter.com/littlecalculist/status/319765056810258434
14:44 addyosmani: awesome :)
14:44 btford: woot
14:44 danheberden: ok, so i think that's all the moving pieces we need to track for the meeting; however, we can stick around and talk through other things for sure
14:44 sindresorhus: necolas: :)
14:44 danheberden: so i'll call an end to the formal part 
14:44 danheberden: unless anyone has something they want to bring up
14:45 wibblymat__: Was thinking about new contributors
14:45 wibblymat__: And how hard it was to get into the bower code
14:45 necolas: cool. you guys are doing great stuff.
14:45 wibblymat__: But thats probably just a rewrite/refactor thing
14:45 marcooliveira: wibblymat__: that should improve with the rewrite :)
14:45 satazor: wibblymat__: it will be easier with the rewrite
14:45 necolas: wibblymat__: in what way? the code makes it hard to add to it?
14:45 danheberden: wibblymat__: i think working towards a contributing.md either way is a good iea
14:45 desandro: rewrite branch - https://github.com/twitter/bower/tree/rewrite
14:45 wibblymat__: necolas: The coede is hard to read :)
14:45 sindresorhus: wibblymat__: so much +1
14:46 danheberden: some over arching code-design docs, in either case, would be helpful
14:46 paulmillr: What are cons of making “main” field mandatory in bower package?
14:46 wibblymat__: Yeah, I know about the rewrite, was just wondering if there were some short term wins to be had.
14:46 bmac has left IRC (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
14:46 sindresorhus: wibblymat__: better contribution docs
14:46 petermichaux: paulmillr: is the main field even used for anything now?
14:46 paulmillr: i don’t know
14:47 sindresorhus: petermichaux: I use it in https://github.com/yeoman/grunt-bower-requirejs
14:47 desandro: main is used for bower list commands - bower list --map
14:47 desandro: bower list --sources
14:47 marcooliveira: wibblymat__: it shouldn't take that long to rewrite, and then we can get lots of wins :)
14:47 petermichaux: sindresorhus: but is main used by bower at all? Or just for third-party tools?
14:47 sindresorhus: petermichaux: it's meant for 3rd-party tools
14:48 necolas: all the FE tooling is still so new. rough around the edges but exciting to see it happening in our profession.
14:48 danheberden: petermichaux: i'd like it to be used by bower to provide info to 3rd party tools and users
14:48 inavat has left IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
14:48 petermichaux: perhaps "main" needs much clearer definition about its use so developers know what to include in main
14:48 necolas: we're working on it in the spec doc
14:49 desandro: Hard to define, but it's easy to understand with solid examples
14:50 danheberden: :D
14:50 marcooliveira: petermichaux: totally agree. Maybe we should start by listing every feature "main" is supposed to cover, and then try to come up with the logic behind it
14:50 wibblymat__: No existing tools should be using main right now because you can't know what it means yet :)
14:50 petermichaux: marcooliveira: something needs to indicate the intention clearly so developers know how to best take advantage of it.
14:50 petermichaux: wibblymat__: true
14:50 danheberden: petermichaux: totes, we just need to figure out the intention still
14:51 danheberden: haha
14:51 marcooliveira: danheberden: exactly! :D
14:51 danheberden: alright so no points left to cover?
14:51 marcooliveira: I'm good
14:51 desandro: I got an extra-time discussion point
14:51 danheberden: thanks to those that took notes in the doc - i'll send out that form
14:51 danheberden: for timing
14:52 danheberden: so good meeting er'body and feel free to hang out and talk about desandro's discussion point
14:52 desandro: I think I'm alone on this - but I see managing post-build assets as a secondary goal for Bower. I feel it's backward-facing, looking to support older projects.
14:52 addyosmani: thanks everybody!
14:52 passy: We need another group shot!
14:52 danheberden: desandro: i think that could be managed with a group thing
14:52 danheberden: like grunt + bower = looooove
14:53 wibblymat__: Whats the emoticon for bunny ears behind someones head?
14:53 danheberden: grunt-bower: THE ULTIMATE MANGEMENT OF EVERYTHING OMG
14:53 desandro: My thinking is more in line with TJ's original 'component' blog post
14:54 addyosmani: I'm still consolidating my thoughts on where component(1) type concepts fit inside the bower world
14:54 desandro: Like the bigger goal should be helping developers publish new scripts that have singular purpose
14:54 addyosmani: i think they're legit
14:54 danheberden: ￣\:D/￣
14:54 sindresorhus: ￣\:D/￣ 
14:54 desandro: ￣\:D/￣
14:54 passy: ￣\:D/￣
14:54 wibblymat__: ￣\:D/￣
14:54 addyosmani: ￣\:P/￣
14:54 paulmillr: COMBO BREAKER
14:54 sindresorhus: ￣\:D/￣ 
14:55 marcooliveira:  (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
14:55 addyosmani: ￣\:P/￣
14:55 satazor: ￣\:D/￣
14:55 sindresorhus:  ￣\:D/￣        
14:55 addyosmani: ￣\:P/￣
14:55 satazor: rotfl marcooliveira
14:55 sindresorhus: anyway
14:55 marcooliveira: haha
14:56 addyosmani: haha
14:56 addyosmani: prefer yours by far dan
14:57 desandro: trying to back-support jQuery, Bootstrap, Modernizr shouldn't be primary goal.
14:57 sindresorhus: desandro: totally agree
14:57 necolas: desandro: agreed!
14:57 paul_irish: whats OSUOSL?
14:57 sindresorhus: monolithic libs is obviously not the future
14:57 danheberden: ?g OSUOSL
14:58 sindresorhus: paul_irish: google it!
14:58 sindresorhus: :p
14:58 paul_irish: i was AFK for last 30min. :/
14:58 paul_irish: OK
14:58 danheberden: passy: osu's open source lab
14:58 necolas: well, jquery will work with a publish model. but in terms of custom builds of jquery, we shouldn't get into that imo
14:58 danheberden: oops
14:58 danheberden: paul_irish: 
14:58 wibblymat__: Is there a transcript of this meeting? My connection has been really flaky so I think I've missed some chunks.
14:58 danheberden: darn p[tab]
14:58 danheberden: wibblymat__: yeah, i'l put one in the agenda
14:58 necolas: paul_irish: fedora, maven, python, linux, drupal are all apparently hosted with them
14:58 paulmillr: +1 I really think component(1) has very superior concept, sadly implementation is opinionated.