Hello all, it’s time for the fortnightly coding standards meeting. The meeting will take place in slack in various threads
This meeting:
➤ Is for anyone interested in the Drupal coding standards.
➤ Usually happens fortnightly on Tuesday 2100 UTC. The meeting open for 24 hours to allow for all timezones.
➤ Is done on the #coding standards channel in Drupal Slack (see www.drupal.org/slack for information).
➤ Happens in threads, which you can follow to be notified of new replies even if you don’t comment in the thread. You may also join the meeting later and participate asynchronously!
➤ Has a public agenda anyone can add to. See the parent issue for an idea of the typical agenda.
➤A transcript will be made using drupal-meeting-parser and posted to the agenda issue. For anonymous comments, start with a :bust_in_silhouette: emoji. To take a comment or thread off the record, start with a :no_entry_sign: emoji.
quietone |
Can we select some core issues to focus on getting committed in the next minor? |
quietone |
For coding s standards, maybe pick an issue to discuss each meeting? |
dww |
Personally, I'm still unclear on governance stuff for this effort. My impression is that the coding standards queue is paralyzed from lack of ability to make any formal decisions. |
dww |
I don't know that that's changed. Maybe the point here is to generate some activity such that things start moving, anyway, even if we're not acknowledged as having any authority to make any decisions. :sweat_smile: |
quietone |
Good reminder about the governance. That is correct, we are the 'unofficial coding standards committee' so need to be aware that we can not make final decisions in the coding standards issue queue.However, I do think that if we can make high quality activity there and that will lead to a response on the governance issue. |
quietone |
Even aside from that there are oodles of core CS issues to work through. Including one I should have monitored to get into 9.4 beta and missed. |
dww |
Do you wanna open 5️⃣ for that issue, so we have something concrete to focus on? |
dww |
The longer-term CS issue I'd love to make progress on is #1539712: [policy, no patch] Coding standards for breaking function calls and language constructs across lines, just over 10 years and running. |
dww |
But, I have no idea how to move that forward in the current circumstances, really. |
dww |
So yeah, I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on how we can help these issues that are basically blocked / stuck, if we have no formal authority. I suppose we can try to generate more activity, refine issue summaries, summarize debates, etc, and make it easier for people who do have authority to make decisions. |
dww |
Just opened 6️⃣ for this so we can discuss that one more specifically. |
quietone |
As I understand it the Coding Standards Committee was a sub group of the Technical Working Group, although mostly the same folks. The TWG is now one person, the only person with authority. |
quietone |
I think the way to make progress is to demonstrate our commitment and quality of work by triaging the issues and doing as much as we can within the confines of not having authority. I can image that after triaging, many issues could wind up postponed waiting for action from the official Coding Standards Committee. (edited) |
dww |
Sounds good. I'm willing to try. :sweat_smile: |
dww |
It's mostly blocked on anyone with authority to make a decision. It was basically ready to go 10 years ago. :sweat_smile: Although there are some newer comments with slightly different proposals that could be assessed, incorporated into the summary, etc. |
dww |
My sense is that it's already too big and complicated to ever land. Someone (I forget now who) pointed out that adding ~ a dozen new rules for this isn't likely to make anyone happy. |
dww |
So ideally there's a way to simplify the hell out of it and make it easier to read, understand, and reason about. |
dww |
(without 3 pages of SHOULD and MUST clauses) :joy: |
quietone |
I saw a comment that maybe it needs to be split into smaller steps. |
dww |
Perhaps, yeah. Although 4 issues that each add 5 new rules isn't necessarily much better than 1 adding 20. But at least if we focus on 5 rules for 1 part of it, it might actually happen, instead of discussing it for another decade. |
quietone |
In the end, I reckon we will get to a point where it is all tidied up and the IS states clearly that it is postponed on a specific action by CS committee. (edited) |
dww |
Sounds good. |
quietone |
So maybe in a few months (since we are all busy) we can demonstrate that we have regular meetings, are establishing a workflow, making progress in the CS issue queue etc and can then again ask for a review of the governance issue to add people to the CS committee. |
borisson_ |
I didn't read the entire issue yet, but can we copy some of the language of what the psr coding standards about this say? |
longwave |
agree that this one needs splitting into smaller steps or it will just remain stalled imo |
Comments
Comment #2
quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commentedfix formatting
Comment #3
quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commentedSetting date/time for first meeting.
Comment #4
quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commentedComment #9
quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commentedComment #10
quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commentedComment #11
quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commentedComment #12
quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commentedNo request for changes at the following meeting.
Comment #14
quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commentedThis should be in the Coding Standards project.