Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add 2016-11-15 meetings notes #7

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 16, 2016
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
45 changes: 45 additions & 0 deletions meetings/2016-11-15.MD
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -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).