Mochabot log - CommonJS IRC channel: #commonjs on irc.freenode.net

2010-10-14:

[15:12] <sid3k> Hi all, new implementation form in the wiki doesn't work...
[15:19] <dmachi> sid3k: i think they are migrating the wiki or making changes to it, there has been a lot of discussion over the past couple of days on the mailing list about this.
[15:21] <sid3k> dmachi: arright
[15:21] <dmachi> (I beleive someone is moving it to github to be a wikl here, but i'm not 100% sure)
[15:22] <sid3k> hmm, github wiki would be great
[15:23] <dmachi> yeah, i think thats what they are doing...but i don't think they've gotten much past someone taking on the task (this was just yesterday this was all discussed)
[15:40] <deanlandolt> sid3k: yeah, sounds like irakli is getting the ball rolling on moving to github
[15:51] <Wes-> Personally, I would rather we spent time on advocacy and developing content for commonjs.org, jshq.org, etc than porting the wiki
[15:51] <Wes-> But, at least the port should(?) mean the end of on-going maintenance
[15:52] <Wes-> You know what would be cool?
[15:52] <Wes-> A CommonJS Blog
[15:52] <Wes-> where the key implementors and big mouths in the CommonJS mailing list contribute posts
[15:52] <Wes-> say, we assign each week to a different guy, to post "something neat" that can be done with CommonJS
[15:53] <Wes-> Or even stuff that is slightly pre-common-js
[15:55] <Wes-> Like, dean, introducing your common-binary-stuff module would be sweet
[16:02] <zumbrunn> Wes-: I agree that moving to github is just a nice-to-have taks, but the only reason it hasn't happened in the past was because no one stepped forward to do it, right?
[16:02] <zumbrunn> it's not that there was actual disagreement, questioning whether it would be a good move
[16:03] <zumbrunn> and on the other hand I think we settled that staying on a vps would have been fine as well
[16:03] <zumbrunn> and that the financials are a non-issue
[16:03] <zumbrunn> it's just that someone needs to do it, whatever we do
[16:03] <zumbrunn> so, if the github thing is happening, that's great
[16:04] <Wes-> zumbrunn: Right - both you and I are able to fund this kind of stuff (I secured approval this morning) - the hardest thing is finding the man power to do the work, and manage the results on a on-going basis
[16:04] <Wes-> I'm personally ambivalent on github - it's nice that there is no maintenance, but I personally prefer to control the platform
[16:05] <zumbrunn> the nice thing about github is that we could later just use it as a backend, if we wanted to
[16:05] <zumbrunn> and build a commonjs implemented web app as frontend
[16:07] <Wes-> zumbrunn: Yeah - being able to access the wiki as an SVN repo (it must be possible?) is a good thing
[16:07] <Wes-> er, GIT repo, lol
[16:07] <zumbrunn> hehe
[19:24] <deanlandolt> Wes- that's a good idea...i'll start writing something up...but first i have to solve the chicken/egg problem of how to actually /test/ binary without a binary constructor :-/
[19:24] <Wes> deanlandolt: what does your binary constructor need?
[19:25] <deanlandolt> well, i'm just spoofing whatever platform native binary that's available
[19:25] <Wes> deanlandolt: So use binary from GPSEE to test
[19:25] <deanlandolt> i guess just a string or other binary...fixed length buffers take a length
[19:26] <deanlandolt> yeah, i can use any of hte binary natives, but i'm trying to write tests regardless of binary...turns out you need to construct binary for that and we don't have a constructor
[19:27] <deanlandolt> i guess that can just be a library feature though, no need for it to be a constructor
[19:28] <Wes> deanlandolt: idea 2 - typed arrays for webgl - you can test in most modern browsers
[19:28] <Wes> Although I'd like to convince you to download gpsee. ;)
[19:28] <deanlandolt> yeah, that's another host-supplied binary we can patch
[19:29] <deanlandolt> heh...i'll do that now :)
[19:29] <Wes> you probably want to pull from hg, the tarball has a couple of install-related bugs (ld_library_path stupidity)
[19:30] <deanlandolt> k

 

 

Logs by date :