Node: Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2016-08-31

Created on 30 Aug 2016 · 20Comments · Source: nodejs/node

Time

UTC Wed 31-Aug-2016 20:00:

| Timezone | Date/Time |
| --- | --- |
| US / Pacific | Wed 31-Aug-2016 13:00 |
| US / Mountain | Wed 31-Aug-2016 14:00 |
| US / Central | Wed 31-Aug-2016 15:00 |
| US / Eastern | Wed 31-Aug-2016 16:00 |
| Amsterdam | Wed 31-Aug-2016 22:00 |
| Berlin | Wed 31-Aug-2016 22:00 |
| Moscow | Wed 31-Aug-2016 23:00 |
| Tokyo | Thu 01-Sep-2016 05:00 |
| Sydney | Thu 01-Sep-2016 06:00 |

Or in your local time:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Node.js+Foundation+Core%20Technical%20Committee%20(CTC)+Meeting+2016-08-31&iso=20160831T20
or http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8pm+UTC%2C+Aug+31%2C+2016+in+local+time

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.

Source

Trott

Most helpful comment

It is more than just the releasers that should be considered. As someone who ends up doing, or help others do, quite a few V8 backports, the lack of uniformity of process on how to backport things to all the release branches is a big problem. Consistency is an issue for me.

ofrobots on 31 Aug 2016

👍3

All 20 comments

For most participants, this meeting will take place on Wednesday afternoon/night or Thursday morning. The meeting will take place 41.5 hours from the time of this writing.

Trott on 30 Aug 2016

Standup portion of the doc is ready to be filled in.

Trott on 30 Aug 2016

@Trott care to chair this one? I'm still quite out of sync and mostly have my head in Foundation business and a bunch of Build WG stuff.

rvagg on 31 Aug 2016

Away from email/slack/phone during this meeting. No updates from last week.

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 8:09 AM Rod Vagg [email protected] wrote:

@Trott https://github.com/Trott care to chair this one? I'm still quite
out of sync and mostly have my head in Foundation business and a bunch of
Build WG stuff.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/8330#issuecomment-243744222, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB46oEZIdR3VmgG48zZgVLdtJWgPKMqZks5qlW7pgaJpZM4JwFVJ
.

hackygolucky on 31 Aug 2016

Could we add #7935 for a brief discussion if there would be some time left?

ChALkeR on 31 Aug 2016

I unfortunately will not be able to make the meeting this time. I still believe that we should have a single release process across all lines, which includes having a staging branch for current. Consistency makes it easier for us to on board individuals, and makes it easier for contribution between the various release lines.

MylesBorins on 31 Aug 2016

@TheAlphaNerd Last week I was told consistency was not the issue...

Fishrock123 on 31 Aug 2016

@Fishrock123 it is one of a few issues I've brought up in the past. Others include:

Handling conflicts in advance
having a place to land things intermediately that does not pollute the release branch

Having done both current + LTS releases I have personally found that it adds work prior to the release, but significantly simplifies the process on release day.

TBQH I think that the discussion has gone back and forth quite a bit. If the individuals who are primarily doing the current releases are reluctant then I'll let it be.

MylesBorins on 31 Aug 2016

ofrobots on 31 Aug 2016

👍3

@Trott care to chair this one? I'm still quite out of sync and mostly have my head in Foundation business and a bunch of Build WG stuff.

I'm traveling and will be on cafe WiFi. _Should_ be OK, but we should have a Plan B and Plan C if it doesn't work out for me.

Plan B = @jasnell?

Plan C = whoever wants to do it can volunteer?

Plan D = @rvagg does it whether he wants to or not?

Trott on 31 Aug 2016

I won't be able to make it today.

misterdjules on 31 Aug 2016

Not sure how well I would work as a Plan B today, unfortunately. The kids get out of school at 1pm pacific and I have to drop them off at their Robotics club meeting right after so I'm going to be mobile and away from the laptop for most of the call.... I'll be on the call, just won't have convenient access to the notes or agenda and will have to mute frequently

jasnell on 31 Aug 2016

OK, I think I'm good to run this one. ~~Can someone email (or otherwise private message) me the dial-in info just in case WiFi availability torpedoes my audio stream?~~ EDIT: Thanks to @bmeck, I now have the info.

Trott on 31 Aug 2016

Apologies, I won't be able to attend today.

chrisdickinson on 31 Aug 2016

A reminder for @nodejs/ctc that we agreed last week that this would be the first item on this week's agenda:

fs: undeprecate existsSync; use access instead of stat for performance #7455

Please be prepared to have a discussion if you think this is something you have an opinion on.

As usual, we have a lot to talk about and it would be great if we could avoid (as much as is reasonable) briefing each other on this or trying to problem-solve during the meeting. Please go comment or ask questions in that issue!

Thanks!

Trott on 31 Aug 2016

Different reminder for @nodejs/ctc: We also agreed to try to get a quick resolution on this this week, so it should probably be the second item:

doc: add Google Analytics tracking. #6601

The consensus last week was that it seemed more-or-less OK but that it didn't seem right to move forward without @bnoordhuis being there for the conversation, since they had the strongest objections. (@bnoordhuis: Sorry for the short notice, but if you're not going to be at the meeting this week, it would be great if you get a chance to indicate that you're OK with it happening, or if you are strongly opposed, or whatever accurately describes your current opinion.)

Trott on 31 Aug 2016

Third reminder-ish for @nodejs/ctc: We agreed to defer this from last week until this week:

Introduce staging branch for stable release streams #6306

The main reason was to have @TheAlphaNerd there for the conversation as the two main viewpoints of the conversation seem to be best represented by @TheAlphaNerd on the one hand and @Fishrock123 on the other.

Since @TheAlphaNerd is missing the meeting today, and since (AFAICT) this is not time-critical, I move that we table this for another week and try to have the conversation again at next week's meeting (unless, of course, things get resolved in GitHub to everyone's satisfaction between now and then).

Trott on 31 Aug 2016

regrets today.