jquery: Update jQuery from 1.11.2 to 1.11.3

[mgol]

No description provided.

[mgol]

This is simple so I'd like to land it soon. @jquery/content, any objections? Are there other places I'd need to check?

[arthurvr]

any objections? Are there other places I'd need to check?

Looks good to me at least. 👍 We didn't have to update anything else in #332 as well.

[mgol]

I see the branch name I created looks misleading. ;) I did upgrade to 1.11.3 as there is no 1.11.4.

Should I test anything in particular before landing this?

[jzaefferer]

Can we use our own CDN instead of maintaining a copy in this repository? Seems like a good opportunity to fix that.

[mgol]

We are using the CDN, look closer at the diff. The local copy is to be
able to run the page locally offline (the document.write hack is used to do
that).

Michał Gołębiowski

[mgol]

We're using the Google CDN instead of our own, though.

Michał Gołębiowski

[jzaefferer]

Sorry, I ignored the diff. Let's replace the whole thing with only using the jQuery CDN. We fully rely on that elsewhere anyway.

[mgol]

Where do we rely on it?

Michał Gołębiowski

[scottgonzalez]

Every single demo on the API sites.

[mgol]

OK, fair enough. That reminds me API sites need their jQueries updated as well, e.g. https://github.com/jquery/api.jquery.com/blob/320265a67851969e02837b88f14802d93ef8e7fc/entries2html.xsl specifies 1.10.2.

[arthurvr]

OK, fair enough. That reminds me API sites need their jQueries updated as well, e.g. https://github.com/jquery/api.jquery.com/blob/320265a67851969e02837b88f14802d93ef8e7fc/entries2html.xsl specifies 1.10.2.

Yep, there's an open issue about that. I was planning to wait till the v3 release.

[mgol]

Yep, there's an open issue about that. I was planning to wait till the v3 release.

We'll have 1.12.0 & 2.2.0 shortly before 3.0.0; seems fine to just wait until 3.0.0 then as it will require making sure API examples wouldn't break.

[mgol]

PR updated. I used the https link, although previously there was a relative-protocol one. I also see a lot of links are hardcoded to http... That's bad.

What's stopping us from switching all protocol-relative links to https? Why do we still need to even make the site available over http? Is there an issue I could track?

[arthurvr]

seems fine to just wait until 3.0.0 then as it will require making sure API examples wouldn't break.

👍

What's stopping us from switching all protocol-relative links to https? Why do we still need to even make the site available over http? Is there an issue I could track?

Yeah, we've been discussing this in the content meetings but one of us will need to go through all sites to remove those links that are hardcoded to http first. I was planning to do this but haven't had much time lately. It's on my todo list though, I should have time for it soon.

[mgol]

OK, in any case, this PR should be good. Can I get some LGTMs?

[jzaefferer]

You're still adding themes/jquery/js/jquery-1.11.3.min.js - don't need that anymore, right?

[mgol]

Right, sorry, fixed.

[jzaefferer]

Looks good.