SamWhitedYah, 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
Ge0rGhttps://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)
Ge0rGI like the changes (I think I liked the old one as well), but it's got typos: "to" instead of "too"
SamWhitedguus.der.kinderen: I don't think it did, you're safe :)
danielI'm still in favor of that one. (I was the one who suggested it in the first place)
Zashhas left
guus.der.kinderenYup, Daniel made me do it.
Ge0rGguus.der.kinderen: would you fix the "too"s?
guus.der.kinderenGe0rG: what's that? Spelling?
jonas’(yes)
Ge0rGso 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.kinderenGe0rG: will fix
danielHuh
Zashhas left
danielI switched to desktop and the messages I sent from there don't arrive...
danielAnyway
daniel+1
SamWhitedI'm +1 as well if we're making this official; this makes good sense
lnjhas joined
Ge0rGGreat. I suppose Kev and Dave will on-list then.
guus.der.kinderenTo/too fixed.
daniel+1
Ge0rGdaniel: there it is
danielWell at least sm works
Ge0rGhttps://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
SamWhitedI 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
Ge0rGIn February, Kev suggested to do a rewording of the text to make the intention clear.
SamWhitedSeems like we can close it to clean up the PRs with a note about that then, I'll leave something.
SamWhitedOh, I was about to say "wait, there is a new protoxep, how did I miss this?" but daniel just submitted it
Ge0rGSorry, looks like my desktop client got DoSed by presence.
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rGSo 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
danielyes
Ge0rGOur 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 Mauveguus.der.kinderen, you still have a s/to/too/ to do, here: “by sending an 'h' value that is to high”
Link MauveAlso, is is “a undefined-condition” or “an undefined-condition”?
Link MauveAlso s/handled-count-to-high/handled-count-too-high/
doshas joined
Davehas left
Davehas joined
genofirehas left
genofirehas joined
guus.der.kinderenLink Mauve: can you edit the pr? I'm not near my laptop for the rest of the day.
Link MauveOh wow, I indeed can! :o
Link MauveNever saw that.
Link MauveTheir online editor fails the search feature though. ^^'
XMPP Council - 2018-09-19