Yah, I have no recollection of which of these have been covered or not
guus.der.kinderenhas joined
jonas’
Guus’ PR wasn’t
jonas’
it was discussed, but Guus made updates to it
jonas’
the XEP-0198 one
Ge0rG
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/579
jonas’
(discussed and rejected back then)
jonas’
(but now changes)
jonas’
that one, exactly, thanks, Ge0rG
Zashhas left
guus.der.kinderen
(hargh, I got disconnected from this muc again. Please disregard my last comment, if it came through)
Ge0rG
I like the changes (I think I liked the old one as well), but it's got typos: "to" instead of "too"
SamWhited
guus.der.kinderen: I don't think it did, you're safe :)
daniel
I'm still in favor of that one. (I was the one who suggested it in the first place)
Zashhas left
guus.der.kinderen
Yup, Daniel made me do it.
Ge0rG
guus.der.kinderen: would you fix the "too"s?
guus.der.kinderen
Ge0rG: what's that? Spelling?
jonas’
(yes)
Ge0rG
so we have...
#3 Items for voting: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/579 "Add handled-count-too-high specification"
Ge0rG
+1 with the typos fixed.
guus.der.kinderen
Ge0rG: will fix
daniel
Huh
Zashhas left
daniel
I switched to desktop and the messages I sent from there don't arrive...
daniel
Anyway
daniel
+1
SamWhited
I'm +1 as well if we're making this official; this makes good sense
lnjhas joined
Ge0rG
Great. I suppose Kev and Dave will on-list then.
guus.der.kinderen
To/too fixed.
daniel
+1
Ge0rG
daniel: there it is
daniel
Well at least sm works
Ge0rG
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/591 "XEP-0050 Ad-Hoc Commands: Clarify 'execute' actions equivalence" was VETOed according to the Table Of Doom, as was the competing #598. Anybody remembers what the next steps with those are?
Davehas left
Davehas joined
Davehas left
Davehas joined
SamWhited
I think we just close it and if the author wants to change things and submit a new PR that's fine. Did we have feedback? I vaguely remember that having more optional stuff didn't feel good, but don't remember the specifics
guus.der.kinderenhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas joined
guus.der.kinderenhas joined
Ge0rG
In February, Kev suggested to do a rewording of the text to make the intention clear.
SamWhited
Seems like we can close it to clean up the PRs with a note about that then, I'll leave something.
SamWhited
Oh, I was about to say "wait, there is a new protoxep, how did I miss this?" but daniel just submitted it
Ge0rG
Sorry, looks like my desktop client got DoSed by presence.
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rG
So it's over time, we don't have a clean agenda and not much of discussion either. Wrap it up and aim for +1W?
Zashhas left
daniel
yes
Ge0rG
Our work here is done.
lnjhas left
Zashhas left
Davehas left
Davehas joined
Davehas left
Davehas joined
Zashhas left
Davehas left
Davehas joined
ralphmhas left
danielhas left
SamWhitedhas left
Zashhas left
Davehas left
Davehas joined
danielhas left
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
Davehas left
Davehas left
Davehas joined
labdsfhas left
labdsfhas joined
Link Mauve
guus.der.kinderen, you still have a s/to/too/ to do, here: “by sending an 'h' value that is to high”
Link Mauve
Also, is is “a undefined-condition” or “an undefined-condition”?
Link Mauve
Also s/handled-count-to-high/handled-count-too-high/
doshas joined
Davehas left
Davehas joined
genofirehas left
genofirehas joined
guus.der.kinderen
Link Mauve: can you edit the pr? I'm not near my laptop for the rest of the day.
Link Mauve
Oh wow, I indeed can! :o
Link Mauve
Never saw that.
Link Mauve
Their online editor fails the search feature though. ^^'