From 63f1e96aa358c818bc7c5f2e77079aab20a2f40d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: William Kapke Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:25:59 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Add 2016-11-15 meetings notes All the credit goes to @jasongin for taking these notes. Copied from https://github.com/nodejs/version-management/issues/1#issuecomment-260745153 --- meetings/2016-11-15.MD | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meetings/2016-11-15.MD diff --git a/meetings/2016-11-15.MD b/meetings/2016-11-15.MD new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c211102 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2016-11-15.MD @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ + +## Attendees + +- Jordan Harband @ljharb +- William Kapke @williamkapke +- Myles Borins @TheAlphaNerd +- Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 +- Corey Butler @coreybutler +- Chris Brody @brodybits +- Marcel Klehr @marcelklehr +- George Adams @??? +- Jason Ginchereau @jasongin + +## Notes + +Jordan started by talking about adoption of nvm into Node foundation as being separate from the longer-term WG goal. + +- Myles, while supportive, was trying to better understand Jordan's reasons. Jordan's answers included: governance + (so the project's survival doesn't rely on a single maintainer), licensing support, testing infrastructure. +- Jeremiah relayed the TSC's conerns about a project joining the foundation only to stagnate/die. Jordan suggested + it would still be better for a project (particularly one having a lot of users/infrastructure depending on it) + to stagnate while under the foundation rather than not under it, and also suggested the foundation membership + didn't have to be permanent: a project could be deprecated or removed after it was replaced by something newer. +- Others were still concerned about the adoption leading to the perception of nvm being promoted as the "standard", + even if that was explicitly not the intention. + +Corey and Myles suggested the WG should develop "standards" for all version management tools so they work in a consistent way. + +- (Think of the Promises/A+ spec that many JS promise libraries converged on.) +- Marcel asked whether there's any benefit to having multiple tools if they are all implementing the same standard. +- Jason pointed out standards would have to be limited in scope to avoid dictating specific switching mechanisms and thus + excluding many tools. +- Jordan thought that the standards could leave room for different tools to be better adapted to different platforms or + scenarios. +- There was some concern that standards (or version-switching in general) could not be implemented consistently across + platforms, for example symlinks; Jason pointed out that is largely disproven by nvs. + +Jerimiah is interested in a GUI installer using a version manager or potentially selecting from multiple version managers. + +- It could replace the existing Windows (MSI) and Mac installers which are difficult to maintain. + +George and Chris promoted nvs as a potential solution/inspiration for a converged tool. + +- Jordan agreed nvs is closest being the best long-term design approach. +- Jordan was concerned nvs's approach isn't suitable for some corner cases (and maybe no single tool could cover all of them).