-
Dave
Afternoon all.
-
SamWhited
o/
-
Dave
So, it's time.
-
Dave
1) Roll Call
-
Dave
SamWhited, daniel Kev?
-
Kev
Here.
-
Dave
(We seem to be a Ge0rG down)
-
Dave
Oh, and a daniel down as well?
-
Dave
Hmmm. Seems so. So we're at the minimum for quorum.
-
Dave
2) Last Minute Agenda Bashing
-
Dave
So Tedd Sterr beat me to an agenda this week, which meant that I didn't really check if there was anything else to add to it. Is there?
-
SamWhited
Not that I'm aware of.
-
Dave
3) XEP-0050 Execute Issue
-
Ge0rG
Whoops, sorry.
-
Dave
Kev, do you want to kick this one off?
-
Kev
Not desperately. I'm waiting for everyone else to have digested it properly and to say something.
-
Kev
I'm assuming folks haven't.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: everyone else is waiting for your expert opinion
-
Kev
Ge0rG: As of quite a few weeks ago now, everyone else was going to go away and try to understand it.
-
Kev
This is gnarly, I don't think me just suggesting text and people voting based on it looking reasonable is the right thing here.
-
SamWhited
I have read back through this one now, but I also don't remember what the original problem was.
-
Kev
SamWhited: That you can have an illegal state because execute is overloaded in weird ways.
-
Dave
As I understand it, it's that there is a silly-state in XEP-0050 whereby Execute effectively points to an action that doesn't exist.
-
Kev
You have an execute action, but you also have an execute attribute that sets a default action.
-
Kev
And that default action with the execute attribute isn't to use the execute action, which might be invalid.
-
SamWhited
ah yes, thanks. I read back over this, I did not read back over the two proposed solutions from last time, I should probably have done that too.
-
Kev
Dave: It's slightly more complicated than that, because of the weird overloading.
-
Dave
So specifically, §3.4 is the weird state, right?
-
Kev
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/598 was how I was trying to address this.
-
Dave
That is, the default for the "execute", which is a sort of action-alias, is "complete" unless any actions are specified, in which case it's "next", which is not always present.
- SamWhited frantically reads this one and pretends he did it yesterday
-
Kev
Dave: Yes. Except that execute isn't really an action-alias, it's a default selected button on the form, and the execute action is just weird.
-
Kev
I tried to sort this out by tying the two together (see the first substantive line of the PR).
-
Dave
Kev, Now what i can't remember is why you weren't happy with your own PR.
-
Kev
Because of the way that execute and execute aren't currently the same thing.
-
Kev
And I want everyone to think carefully about whether my PR that tries to make execute and execute the same is going to break anything.
-
Kev
It wasn't that I believed my PR to be wrong, but that I think this one is gnarly and should have proper understand before folks vote.✎ -
Kev
It wasn't that I believed my PR to be wrong, but that I think this one is gnarly and should have proper understanding before folks vote. ✏
-
Dave
Ah, I see.
-
Kev
Right now if you have execute='complete' and you run the execute command, what you run is 'next'.
-
Kev
And when you have no 'next' action that's clearly all sorts of messed up.
-
Dave
Wait, what?
-
Dave
If you have execute="complete", you run "complete", surely?
-
Kev
Hahaha, why would you do that?
-
Dave
Oh. No, it's not is it?
-
Kev
No, if you have execute='complete', and there is no 'next' action, and you run 'execute' what you are doing is running the non-existent command 'next'.
-
SamWhited
This was part of the confusion last time too; I'm inclined to say that whatever the final PR does it should do everything in its power to simplify the logic here.
-
Kev
SamWhited: I believe that's what my PR does. It would mean that where you have execute='complete', running <execute/> would be equivalent to <complete/>
-
Dave
Kev, OK. I now understand your PR in an entirely new light.
-
Kev
But this is a change to some pretty whacky implications and I want people to really understand what the issue is here before blithely accepting my suggestion based on believing that this bit of xep50 is less crazy than it really is :)
-
Dave
Kev, I also think it's potentially wrong. We should probably deprecate the execute action instaed.
-
Kev
Dave: I think that may well be the better solution.
-
Dave
So the case that concerns me is where execute="complete" but a next action exists; your proposal changes that I believe.
-
Kev
Exactly.
-
peter
OT: the other day I found my marked-up paper copy of XEP-0050 from ~8 years ago :-)
-
Kev
peter: Does it fix this? :)
-
Dave
OK, so yes, I think we should be deprecating the execute action on the basis that it doesn't do what I thought it did after several years.
-
SamWhited
That also seems like a good solution to me; especially since multiple people have been confused in a similar way here.
-
Dave
SamWhited, Indeed.
-
SamWhited
Unless peter's notes have an elegant solution written in the margin
-
peter
heh I'll take a look
-
Kev
Alas, the solution was too big to fit in the margin.
-
Dave
"There is a simple solution to this, but alas this margin is too small to contain it"
-
Dave
:-)
-
Dave
OK, let's move on.
-
Dave
Actually, given the time, do we want to discuss stream compression at all?
-
Kev
Newp.
-
SamWhited
I've got time today; but whatever you all want to do. I don't have much to say on the matter anyways.
-
Dave
Right, I think that's fine - we'll skip the remaining items. I'm not entirely sure what #577's status is anyway.
-
Dave
I'll commit to sorting that out for next week.
-
Dave
6) Outstanding Votes
-
Dave
I'll sort mine out after the meeting - Ge0rG, do you have a view on im-ng?
-
Ge0rG
Dave: sorry, not yet
-
Dave
Ge0rG, OK. You've a week before it goes through anyway.
-
Ge0rG
I'm currently way over my head in a long-range home relocation
-
Dave
7) AOB
-
Dave
Ge0rG, Exciting stuff.
-
peter
Alas, my notes on XEP-0050 seem to be mostly editorial, with a bit of content about multi-stage vs. single-stage command sessions, and caching.
-
Dave
(Assuming no AOB)
-
Dave
8) Next Meeting
-
Dave
Next week same time?
-
Kev
I'm almost certain not to make next week.
-
Ge0rG
+1W should work for me
-
Dave
SamWhited, still working for you?
-
Dave
(Assuming so)
-
Dave
9) Ite, Meeting Est.
-
Kev
Thanks all.
-
Kev
I'm glad I was finally able to share the horror on 50.
-
Dave
Thanks all. Sorry for my disorganisation, I'll get things back on track for next week.
-
SamWhited
Sorry, got distracted. Works for me. Thanks all!
-
Dave
Kev, Thanks for your patience here. I'd clearly been missing the key issue for ages now.
-
flow
> Kev> No, if you have execute='complete', and there is no 'next' action, and you run 'execute' what you are doing is running the non-existent command 'next'.
-
flow
Don't you run whatever execute points to in this case, e.g. 'complete'? Or am I missing something?
-
SamWhited
heh, that's what this whole discussion was about. You would think that, wouldn't you?
-
flow
Yeah, mostly from "The "execute" attribute defines which of the included actions is considered the equivalent to "execute" for this stage." in xep50
-
flow
It's been a while that I looked into it, but I gave a comparision of Kev's and my suggestion at https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/591#issuecomment-373313491 from my POV
-
Dave
flow, To my intense surprise, that's not what §3.4 actually says.
-
Dave
flow, It says that "3. If there is an <actions/> element [...] The action "execute" is always allowed, and is equivalent to the action "next".
-
Dave
flow, Hence my thinking is that the "execute" action is a disaster, and we should deprecate it (ie, SHOULD NOT use the action "execute").