Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

[08:00:19 CST(-0600)] <jessm>

[08:00:35 CST(-0600)] <jessm> everyone should watch the video of Meghan starting at University

[08:56:54 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> hi, anastasiac, i've merged your pull request for ILDH site into "mediawiki-1.18.1" branch. However, I cannot access the production server from home since my home computer uses a different key. I've emailed avtar with the new key. I will grab him to do it once he comes in. So, the change hasn't been deployed on the the server yet.

[09:03:08 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, thanks for the merge!

[09:03:51 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> np, anastasiac

[09:18:20 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jessm, jameswy, while we're waiting for avatar's help getting the styling changes onto the production site, I'm going to start making the necessary changes to the content. If you see some things that don't look visually quite right, don't panic: It will look great with the new stylesheet (smile)

[09:19:09 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> anastasiac: You mean the semantic tags for the content?

[09:19:21 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> I'm going to be going through the content proper a bit later.

[09:19:47 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jameswy, that, plus correct levels for headings, classes for the captions, etc

[09:19:58 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> anastasiac: Awesome, thanks!

[09:20:57 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> btw, can we also look into nixing those section edits?

[09:24:09 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: are you working on video player today?

[09:25:14 CST(-0600)] <michelled> jvass: can you take a look at this and see if you see anything that has regressed?

[09:30:06 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> yes, michelled

[09:30:18 CST(-0600)] <michelled> what are you working on specifically?

[09:30:19 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> working on the smaller video size in chrome

[09:31:05 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: I'm not sure what the problem is - can you explain it a bit?

[09:32:26 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> if you compare the videoPlayer.html demo in firefox and chrome, the video displayed in chrome is somehow much smaller than firefox, and then it's used to be, michelled

[09:34:10 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jameswy, yes, I'll investigate the section edits

[09:34:11 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: they look the same size to me

[09:34:21 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: what versions of the browsers are you using?

[09:34:46 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> michelled: chrome 17.0.963.56 m

[09:34:58 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: I wonder if it's a windows thing.

[09:35:16 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> michelled: i saw the same yesterday with mac

[09:35:44 CST(-0600)] <michelled> anastasiac: do you have a moment to look at this too?

[09:35:59 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli is seeing the videos in different sizes on FF and Chrome

[09:36:04 CST(-0600)] <michelled> I'm seeing them the same size

[09:36:09 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled, sure, I'll pop open a few browsers

[09:37:46 CST(-0600)] <avtar> cindyli: both your keys are on the handbook server

[09:37:57 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> cool, avtar, thanks

[09:38:55 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli and michelled, they look pretty much the same in OS X. I'll look in Windows next. Make sure you don't have your browser "zoomed"

[09:39:54 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> hey, how come, btw, anastasiac, don't have your browser "zoomed"? means?

[09:40:33 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> oh, sorry: I often press command+'+' to enlarge the text in the browser - it enlarges images and the video as well

[09:40:46 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> so if you've done this in, say FF, and not in chrome, they'll look different

[09:41:29 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> anastasiac, jessm: Any idea why the tag [|Open Educational Resource ➝] cuts off the word "Open"?

[09:41:31 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> i see, anastasiac, btw, your styling change for ILDH has been deployed onto the server.

[09:42:11 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Yay!! thanks, cindyli. jessm, do let us know what you think of the new styling

[09:42:17 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> jessm: Refresh your browser!

[09:44:49 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled and cindyli: in Windows, Chrome does look smaller. Interestingly, the whole page looks slightly smaller, mostly in line heights somehow, I suspect. The font size looks similar enough, but vertical alignment is not the same...

[09:45:17 CST(-0600)] <michelled> how much smaller anastasiac?

[09:45:40 CST(-0600)] <michelled> if you max out the UIO text size do the captions go out of the video?

[09:45:50 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> maybe 90/95% height? roughly the same width, michelled

[09:47:02 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> no, michelled, the captions seem ok in terms of size

[09:47:19 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: I think we should leave it as it is then

[09:47:38 CST(-0600)] <michelled> we were just hacking the size so UIO text size changes would look ok

[09:47:48 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> ok, michelled, anything in particular you want me to work on?

[09:47:51 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled, this might be a known issue, but with text size maxed out the size/positioning of the controls doesn't mesh quite right with the captions - some overlap

[09:48:57 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: let's work on polish

[09:48:59 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> michelled: i saw a red that has been assigned to us "slow to load Cindy and Michelle"

[09:49:15 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: yes, but Bosmon mentioned in his email that he'd look at it

[09:49:27 CST(-0600)] <michelled> and honestly, his changes from last night seem to have improved the response time anyway

[09:49:35 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> cool

[09:49:43 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: can you pick some of the styling or toolbar issues to tackle?

[09:49:52 CST(-0600)] <michelled> maybe put your name beside them so I know what you're working on?

[09:50:00 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> sure, michelled

[09:50:05 CST(-0600)] <michelled> and let's check in regularly so we aren't stomping on each other (smile)

[09:50:15 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> ok

[09:51:11 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: the high fidelity mockups we are trying to match are here:

[09:51:16 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> one interesting i noticed, michelle, not sure if you would see the same there (smile), is that when I click on "play" button, or any button that should switch to another button, the switch doesn't happen, however leaves a grey background

[09:51:40 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: it's switching for me

[09:51:51 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> man, what the ...

[09:52:39 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> ah, now it switches, after a refersh

[09:53:02 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: if you are looking at particular colours for things, make sure you read the top part of the design page - jvass has done an amazing job of giving us the actual colours we should use (smile)

[09:53:25 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> ok, michelled

[09:53:26 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jameswy, you'll be happy to know that the section edit links are easy to remove

[09:53:35 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> anastasiac: Awesome.

[09:54:03 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> yeah, that looks much better without them

[10:01:41 CST(-0600)] <jessm> shazam the handbook looks great!

[10:52:18 CST(-0600)] <jessm> fluid-everyone sorry i missed standup

[10:52:27 CST(-0600)] <jessm> i'm working on a CFI bulleted list of what we've done

[10:52:30 CST(-0600)] <jessm> to get to JT

[10:58:53 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> fluid-everyone: Community meeting on ATs starting soon. Anyone need to be skype'd in?

[11:00:03 CST(-0600)] <jessm> jameswy: me?

[11:33:52 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: I don't see your name on the demo plan page - are you working on the initial overlay for the video player? or the buffered indication in the scrubber bar?

[11:34:24 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> the initial overlay

[11:34:38 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> i thought the buffered indicator is the animation of the overlay picture

[11:34:41 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> no?

[11:35:06 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> i will put my name on

[11:36:44 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> michelled: oh, i see what it means by "the buffered indication in the scrubber bar"

[11:37:40 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: it seems that the two tasks are related

[11:37:50 CST(-0600)] <michelled> it might make sense for you to take them both

[11:38:39 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> yes, michelle, do think so. i may need an animation gif from jvass later when I got something working

[12:01:04 CST(-0600)] <clown> Justin_o:

[12:06:01 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> clown: thanks

[12:06:25 CST(-0600)] <clown> Justin_o: wlcm

[12:11:17 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: jvass just mentioned to me that the overly should appear again if there is not enough of the video buffered.

[12:13:53 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> michelled: yes. my understanding is the overlay should always appear as long as the "play" is not clicked

[12:15:15 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> michelled, jvass, if the video is still buffering, the overlay plays the animaton of loading, otherwise, the regular overlay without the yellow part of the loading is displayed. is it right?

[12:15:51 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cindyli: I think play would still be selected when you are playing the video but have run out of buffered video

[12:16:55 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> michelled: what do you mean by "play would still be selected"?

[12:17:25 CST(-0600)] <michelled> I mean I don't think it would have switched into pause mode - but maybe I'm wrong

[12:17:36 CST(-0600)] <michelled> let's give jvass a little time to mull it over

[12:18:03 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> sure, michelled. i'm working on the buffering indicator of the scrubber bar anyway

[12:19:28 CST(-0600)] <jvass> michelled, cindyli: I'm going to take a look at conventions with other video players and put the behaviour up on the design page of the wiki

[12:19:46 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> thanks, jvass

[12:29:47 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> Bosmon: I came across a strange IoC issue yesterday and spent the morning working on a unit test for it.

[13:05:00 CST(-0600)] <jvass> cindyli, michelled: I added notes for initial play and a new buffering mockup

[13:05:02 CST(-0600)] <jvass>

[13:05:19 CST(-0600)] <jvass> let me know if theres anything else i should add

[13:06:03 CST(-0600)] <jvass> I will also get an animated gif up soon, cindyli

[13:08:56 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> thanks, jvass

[13:15:33 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Thanks KINGGG for your report and test cases (smile)

[13:15:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I'll look at them soon

[13:32:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Justin_o: Marco Zehe just demonstrated last night's build of Firefox which just introduced support for Canvas accessibility

[13:33:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> here at CSUN

[13:33:10 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: cool.. how does it work?

[13:33:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So he's got a DOM nested inside the Canvas

[13:33:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and it's being used at a tree to represent the elements in the Canvas

[13:33:53 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> colinclark - really cool

[13:33:56 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> SHADOW DOM!

[13:34:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> (smile)

[13:34:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Yes

[13:34:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> not to be confused with the real Shadow DOM proposal

[13:34:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> which strikes me as terrible

[13:34:16 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Hmm

[13:34:22 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It is certainly confusing me (smile)

[13:34:27 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> how is this different?

[13:34:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, the Shadow DOM proposal...

[13:34:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I forget what it's called

[13:34:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> "widget encapsulation:

[13:34:38 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> You mean, that it is the "REAL SHADOW DOM"?

[13:34:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> "

[13:34:47 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> your friend Alex Russell's proposal

[13:34:50 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Right

[13:34:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> for hiding away the DOM tree of widgets

[13:35:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> whereas this is quite the opposite

[13:35:11 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Wait - the "Shadow DOM proposal" === Alex' proposal?

[13:35:21 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I thought his proposal was also for an "actual" shadow dom

[13:35:28 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> At least, the one he circulated to me over a beer : P

[13:35:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Sorry

[13:35:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> What I mean is

[13:35:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> This Canvas stuff, which we've referred to as a "shadow DOM" is not to be confused with Alex Russell's widget encapsulation stuff

[13:36:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> which most people recognize the "shadow dom" term to mean

[13:36:39 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ah... "widget encapsulation" === "the ability to render native HTML controls at a z-index higher than canvas"?

[13:36:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> no

[13:36:53 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> now i'm totally confused

[13:36:55 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> glarg... sorry : P

[13:37:01 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I was confused at the start

[13:37:05 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> And have merely passed this on : P

[13:37:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> lol

[13:37:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark>

[13:37:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> This is different from the Canvas accessibility

[13:38:18 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Crikey

[13:38:26 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> where there is something like this: <canvas> <button>This button here is a peer to one drawn in the canvas and exposed to AT</button></canvas>

[13:38:28 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Haven't seen this docu before.... it looks pretty imrpessive

[13:38:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> if you know what I mean

[13:39:11 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It also looks remarkably complex....

[13:39:16 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> "First divergent boundary".......

[14:32:11 CST(-0600)] <jessm> michelled: ping

[14:32:19 CST(-0600)] <michelled> hi jessm

[14:32:32 CST(-0600)] <jessm> michelled: how'r things? we on schedule for a freeze Monday?

[14:33:21 CST(-0600)] <michelled> jessm: yep - we no longer have red on our list

[14:33:29 CST(-0600)] <jessm> sweet!

[14:33:47 CST(-0600)] <michelled> well, we have one red item - load speed - but honestly whatever Bosmon did last night has sped things up enough to not seem horribly broken

[14:34:17 CST(-0600)] <michelled> jessm: we are now trying to get closer to pixel perfection to the designs

[14:34:30 CST(-0600)] <jessm> i like the sound of that (smile)

[14:34:42 CST(-0600)] <jessm> jameswy: anastasiac how are we on the ILDH?

[14:36:44 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> jessm: We're pretty awesome. Last set of tweaks en route.

[14:36:45 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jessm, just finishing up. We've got a nice look, I'm just getting the fonts embedded. I'll issue a pull request, and then hopefully cindyli can work her magic and get it up onto the productionsite

[14:36:51 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I'll try deferring the creation of the video players until after UIO has read the settings from the cookie

[14:37:00 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> This should speed things back up roughly to the level they were at before

[14:37:18 CST(-0600)] <jessm> all sounds great

[14:37:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I notice that the "anti-jank" branch of the code currently seems not to be firing

[14:37:39 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> jessm: Super cheap, super fast tweaks that have brought us out of the depths of the inferno, and into acceptable!

[14:37:59 CST(-0600)] <jessm> it's looking quite good

[14:38:25 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> If JT does the demo with Chrome, it should be quite acceptably fast in any case

[14:38:58 CST(-0600)] <jessm> sweet – michelled will you let her know about using Chrome?

[14:40:09 CST(-0600)] <michelled> sure

[14:40:13 CST(-0600)] <jessm> thx

[14:41:37 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I was also wondering if we could defer the creation of the videoPlayers yet later

[14:41:50 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Do we really, ultimately, want multiple "live" video players inserted into the page on startup?

[14:42:14 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I was thinking of a "click to activate" model, or an image which perhaps displayed a mockup of the UI which loaded the player when clicked

[14:45:53 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Oh, the other thing I did which would speed startup was to turn off "merge tracing"

[14:46:03 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> fluid.isTracing = false;

[14:46:14 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> You should be aware that any build which includes FluidDebugging.js gets this turned on for free

[14:46:43 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> This was a device created for performance tracing during CSpace work, but it has a reasonably significant cost to run in terms of memory and CPU at startup

[14:47:08 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Given this has been on all the time, there's no reason that page startup couldn't be even faster than before : P

[15:05:49 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> jessm: I'm thinking about the wording "uio" vs "learner options"...

[15:06:01 CST(-0600)] <jessm> didn't JT say learner options?

[15:06:08 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> Yes, she did, BUT--

[15:06:52 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> If we change it to read "learner options" on the handbook, and someone clicks on that link, it'll go to "UIO"... but it doesn't make sense to change every reference to UIO on the non-ILDH side to "learner options".

[15:07:12 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> But if we don't, there'll be confusion.

[15:07:33 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> (i.e., you click on "learner options", but are greeted with pages and demos that read "UIO")

[15:08:00 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> Thoughts, jessm? ^

[15:08:19 CST(-0600)] <jessm> parentheses to the rescue!!

[15:08:30 CST(-0600)] <jessm> learner options (user interface options, UIO)

[15:08:56 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> That might work for regular text, but what about links?

[15:09:09 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> You click on a link that reads "Learner options demo"...

[15:09:49 CST(-0600)] <jessm> put it in a prominent place

[15:09:59 CST(-0600)] <jessm> that they all basically refer to the same thing

[15:10:50 CST(-0600)] <jessm> we have a namespace issue

[15:10:52 CST(-0600)] <jessm> (smile)

[15:10:53 CST(-0600)] <jessm> ok

[15:11:48 CST(-0600)] <jessm> so, i'm just thinking that if we put it somewhere prominent we don't have to re-do it on every link

[15:14:14 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> jessm: So, is it Learner Options (like User Interface Options), or is it learner options?

[15:14:37 CST(-0600)] <jessm> i've been italicizing component names – horrid, isn't it?

[15:14:51 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> We need a style guide, (tongue)

[15:14:56 CST(-0600)] <jessm> no, not again

[15:15:01 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> Haha.

[15:15:10 CST(-0600)] <jessm> jameswy: pick – you're lead designer – LO or lo you decide

[15:15:44 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> jessm: Learner Options.

[15:15:45 CST(-0600)] <jessm> style guides are the sound of time marching by

[15:15:47 CST(-0600)] <jessm> done

[15:15:56 CST(-0600)] <jessm> i feel stylistically guided

[15:16:07 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> But, I think we should revisit this issue. I vote that anastasiac come up with a naming manual and convention for Fluid.

[15:16:30 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> woohoo!

[15:16:49 CST(-0600)] <jessm> jameswy: i vote that we not let our sudden productivity this last week on ILDH go to our heads and distract us (tongue)

[15:16:59 CST(-0600)] <jessm> anastasiac: it actually isn't a bad idea, just don't tell jameswy

[15:20:32 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> I heard that!

[15:28:06 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> cindyli: just a heads up that anastasiac is almost done with more ILDH changes.

[15:28:12 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, I'm going to be issuing a pull request for more handbook changes in a few minutes. Do you think you'll have time to push them to the server?

[15:28:24 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> yes, i have time, anastasiac

[15:28:31 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> excellent, thanks

[15:28:34 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> np

[15:30:52 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> ok, cindyli, pull request is there

[15:30:59 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> cool

[15:37:40 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, I'm about to add one more commit to that pull request...

[15:37:44 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> if you can just hang on

[15:37:54 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> ok, anastasiac

[15:38:18 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> sorry about that, cindyli. jameswy is picky (smile)

[15:38:30 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> (tongue)

[15:38:38 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> God save us from a designer who is NOT picky!

[15:41:29 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> alright, cindyli, it's there

[15:44:14 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> ok, anastasiac

[15:50:33 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: done, your change is on production as well as the little tweak in LocalSettings

[15:50:47 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, thanks! it's looking great now

[15:50:55 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> cheers!

[16:20:16 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> michelled: I'm just looking at this:

[16:20:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> One question for you

[16:20:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> How come the direction of the gradient changed for the scrubber?

[16:20:36 CST(-0600)] <michelled> jvass: asked for the change

[16:21:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Did we get it wrong in the first place?

[16:21:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it looks like the gradient moves from left to right for the scrubber

[16:21:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but I guess I'm wrong

[16:21:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it runs vertically now, for both?

[16:22:04 CST(-0600)] <michelled> yep, it does - that's what you wanted, right jvass?

[16:23:43 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> michelled: My only other comment is insanely minor...

[16:23:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> wondering if we should standardize on casing for hex colours

[16:23:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> we have both upper and lower case in this file

[16:24:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I don't really mind, myself

[16:24:42 CST(-0600)] <jvass> I put the gradient vertical in the mockups because I found that it worked better against different colours

[16:24:56 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> okay, cool

[16:25:08 CST(-0600)] <michelled> do you have a preference on casing colinclark? I was copy and pasting from the designs on the wiki

[16:25:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So jvass, this gradient looks good to you? background: -moz-linear-gradient(90deg, #ffcc00, #f8e211);

[16:25:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm not zealous about casing (smile)

[16:25:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I've been using lower

[16:27:36 CST(-0600)] <jvass> yep (smile)

[16:28:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> michelled: I'll comment on your pull request

[16:28:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> saying it's awesome

[16:28:40 CST(-0600)] <michelled> thx colinclark (smile)

[16:28:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> oh wait

[16:28:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it's not a pull request

[16:28:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I guess here is good enough?

[16:29:02 CST(-0600)] <michelled> yes, I think so

[16:29:09 CST(-0600)] <michelled> we'll be back to pull requests soon

  • No labels