Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 9, 2017. It is now read-only.

Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2017-05-03 #117

Closed
Trott opened this issue May 1, 2017 · 23 comments
Closed

Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2017-05-03 #117

Trott opened this issue May 1, 2017 · 23 comments

Comments

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented May 1, 2017

Time

UTC Wed 03-May-2017 05:00 (05:00 AM):

Timezone Date/Time
US / Pacific Tue 02-May-2017 22:00 (10:00 PM)
US / Mountain Tue 02-May-2017 23:00 (11:00 PM)
US / Central Wed 03-May-2017 00:00 (12:00 AM)
US / Eastern Wed 03-May-2017 01:00 (01:00 AM)
Amsterdam Wed 03-May-2017 07:00 (07:00 AM)
Moscow Wed 03-May-2017 08:00 (08:00 AM)
Chennai Wed 03-May-2017 10:30 (10:30 AM)
Tokyo Wed 03-May-2017 14:00 (02:00 PM)
Sydney Wed 03-May-2017 15:00 (03:00 PM)

Or in your local time:

Links

Agenda

Extracted from ctc-agenda labelled issues and pull requests from the nodejs org prior to the meeting.

nodejs/node

  • lib,src: eagerly exit process on unhanded promise rejections #12734
  • util: add util.promisify() #12442
  • Upgrade openssl-1.1.0e for Node-v8 (DO NOT LAND THIS) #11828

Invited

Notes

The agenda comes from issues labelled with ctc-agenda across all of the repositories in the nodejs org. Please label any additional issues that should be on the agenda before the meeting starts.

Joining the meeting

Uberconference; participants should have the link & numbers, contact me if you don't.

Public participation

We stream our conference call straight to YouTube so anyone can listen to it live, it should start playing at https://www.youtube.com/c/nodejs+foundation/live when we turn it on. There's usually a short cat-herding time at the start of the meeting and then occasionally we have some quick private business to attend to before we can start recording & streaming. So be patient and it should show up.

Many of us will be on IRC in #node-dev on Freenode if you'd like to interact, we have a Q/A session scheduled at the end of the meeting if you'd like us to discuss anything in particular. @nodejs/collaborators in particular if there's anything you need from the CTC that's not worth putting on as a separate agenda item, this is a good place for it.

@bmeck
Copy link
Member

bmeck commented May 1, 2017

I'll be there for once!

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 1, 2017

I'll be on a flight to Berlin. If they come to a decision point, I am +1 on util.promisify and the throwing on uncaught rejection. However, for the latter I have yet to get through the full pr.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 1, 2017

and the throwing on uncaught rejection. However, for the latter I have yet to get through the full pr.

I'm surprised that had a ctc-agenda label applied immediately on opening with no explanation. I thought we generally discourage that. It's been open for 3 days and there seems to be robust discussion in the issue tracker about it, so it would seem to me that putting it on the agenda is premature. Was it an accident/mistake? /cc @Fishrock123?

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 1, 2017

For nodejs/node#12630 ("Uniform way to trigger debugger on first line"), we agreed to let it go back to the issue tracker for a week to see where things went.

It is now on the Diagnostics WG meeting agenda for May 11. I propose awaiting the result of the Diagnostics WG discussion. (Maybe they can try to talk about it in the tracker ahead of the meeting to get resolution sooner.) If I understand correctly, we want some resolution before Node.js 8.0.0. That would seem to give enough time?

@refack
Copy link

refack commented May 1, 2017

It is now on the Diagnostics WG meeting agenda for May 11

AFAIK @jasnell set the node8 cutoff to May 9th, right?
FWIW I'll try to get the vendors to give explicit preference on future syntax...

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 1, 2017

@Trott ... If that's the earliest they can resolve it, then ok. But having resolution by the 9th would be best, especially if that requires any semver-major changes. If it can be done as a minor then there is much more flexibility.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 1, 2017

nodejs/node#12701 Can likely be taken off ctc-review. I have an open pr that resolves it that will likely land in the next day or so unless there's an objection I haven't seen yet...

@refack
Copy link

refack commented May 1, 2017

IMHO you can exchange
regression: 3rd party debuggers are incompatible with node8 nighlies
with it's solving PR
inspector: restore --debug-brk alias
for discussion on the current regression.

The wider issues is covered in
Uniform way to trigger debugger on first line

Sorry for the brain dumps in both 😳 the more recent comments should be decent summaries...

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

The number of items on the ctc-review list continues to inch up.

Unless anyone speaks up in the next 24 hours or so, I'm going to remove the label again from issues that have had it for more than two or three weeks.

@Fishrock123
Copy link

Fishrock123 commented May 1, 2017

I'm surprised that had a ctc-agenda label applied immediately on opening with no explanation. I thought we generally discourage that. It's been open for 3 days and there seems to be robust discussion in the issue tracker about it, so it would seem to me that putting it on the agenda is premature. Was it an accident/mistake? /cc @Fishrock123?

These options have been discussed for about a year and collectively we don't seem to be able to decide so we might as well talk about it?

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented May 1, 2017

It's not clear why this one is on the agenda:

Upgrade openssl-1.1.0e for Node-v8 (DO NOT LAND THIS) #11828

I think the decision was made to stick with 1.02 for Node version 8. Is this to discuss for version 9 or is it on the agenda for some other reason ?

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented May 1, 2017

Its going to be too early for me even though I will be in the UK.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 2, 2017

@Trott ... If that's the earliest they can resolve it, then ok. But having resolution by the 9th would be best, especially if that requires any semver-major changes. If it can be done as a minor then there is much more flexibility.

@jasnell If they're up for it, maybe @nodejs/diagnostics can make an effort to come to a resolution asynchronously via GitHub or email to get you the answer sooner. (And/or maybe this is something that can be hashed out at the Collaborators Summit?)

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

mcollina commented May 2, 2017

Regarding stream: move prefixed files into internal/streams it is ready to go, it just need approval and a deprecation number. As far as I understand, deprecations are handled by the ctc.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 2, 2017

As far as I understand, deprecations are handled by the ctc.

Cool, thanks for the update. I think you're free to apply a deprecation number as long as you are confident you are not taking an existing number. I've never seen "assign a deprecation number" come up as a CTC item before that I can remember. But @jasnell wrote and mostly manages the deprecation policy, so I'll defer to him on that.

It looks like it has the necessary number of CTC approvals (2) as well as a third "no objection". I'm pretty sure the license boilerplate needs to be restored, but I'll defer again to @jasnell or @williamkapke on that.

@jasnell is the one who added the ctc-review label and also the one who said he wants it to land before 8.0.0, so maybe check in with him if you're at the summit with him this week and get it landed? :-D

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 2, 2017

Assign the deprecation number when the pr lands. Deprecations are semver major so make sure you have at least two ctc members signing off and ask for objections from ctc one last time before landing. That's pretty much it.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 2, 2017

The license boilerplate only needs to be in the original files. It does not need to be in any created files or existing files that no longer contain any of the original code.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

Have to miss this one because I will be on my way to Berlin😢

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 3, 2017

Have to miss this one because I will be on my way to Berlin😢

My FOMO about Berlin continues to intensify...

@evanlucas
Copy link

I'm going to try hard to make it tonight, but I may fall asleep.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 3, 2017

Six people showed up for the meeting. We talked about things on the agenda, but no official business really happened. The meeting was semi-canceled. I'm going to close this as I don't think usable minutes are going to be produced. Feel free to comment if you think it should be re-opened.

@Trott Trott closed this as completed May 3, 2017
@ChALkeR
Copy link
Member

ChALkeR commented May 4, 2017

Sorry, I missed it — it overlapped with my travel to Berlin.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests