From 6c3aabf455f5ed9c65bd6ae1ea208c752317216b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rod Vagg Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:48:24 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] doc: add TSC meeting minutes 2015-07-08 PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/pull/2184 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis --- doc/tsc-meetings/2015-07-08.md | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 130 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/tsc-meetings/2015-07-08.md diff --git a/doc/tsc-meetings/2015-07-08.md b/doc/tsc-meetings/2015-07-08.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d70f39b7df --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/tsc-meetings/2015-07-08.md @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +# Node Foundation TSC Meeting 2015-07-08 + +## Links + +* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/64 +* **Original Minutes Google Doc**: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HuRtu5ZP7ZlrIp756EbZYo4I26v2RY-7CY1pr_3y1nY + +## Agenda + +Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests prior to meeting. + +### nodejs/io.js + +* Default Unhandled Rejection Detection Behavior [#830](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/830) + +### joyent/node + +* Adding a "mentor-available" label [#25618](https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/25618) + +## Minutes + + +### Present + +* Mikeal Rogers +* Colin Ihrig (TSC) +* Ben Noordhuis (TSC) +* James Snell (TSC) +* Fedor Indutny (TSC) +* Bert Belder (TSC) +* Michael Dawson (TSC) +* Steven R Loomis (TSC) +* Alexis Campailla (TSC) +* Jeremiah Senkpiel (TSC) +* Julien Gilli (TSC) +* Chris Dickinson (TSC) +* Shigeki Ohtsu (TSC) +* Trevor Norris (TSC) +* Domenic Denicola +* Brian White (TSC) +* Rod Vagg (TSC) + +### Review of the previous meeting + +* Policy for PR blocking? [#2078](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/2078) + - Resolution was to deal with it on a case-by-case basis for now. + +* Internationalization WG (Steven) + - Steven Loomis is going to kick off the working group. + - Steven: no further responses on the github issue. + - James: just need to get started + +* lts: strawman LTS cycle [lts#13](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/pull/13) / Proposal: Release Process [#1997](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/1997) + + +### Standup: + +* Mikeal Rogers: wrote a new confrence call tool for us that uses Twillio +* Colin Ihrig: Not much, reviewing PRs, triaging issues. +* Ben Noordhuis: reviewed a lot of PRs, upgraded v8 in `next` and `next+1`. +* James Snell: Working on the LTS Proposal, triaging issues in joyent/node, investigating stuff for the upcoming openssl fix. +* Fedor Indutny: fixed node after v8 upgrade. Exposed critical issues. +* Bert Belder: Not much code, had conversations with Mike Dolan and James Snell about the foundation and organizational issues. Working through a laundry list of libuv PRs blocking the next release. +* Michael Dawson: Working on getting PowerPC to build on io.js, tested the security fix from last week, joyent/node triage. +* Steven R Loomis: Worked a bit on the Intl WG, not much else. +* Alexis Campailla: converged CI, almost done. Dealing with windows installer issues. Expect converged CI to work in a week. +* Jeremiah Senkpiel: General triaging and reviewing, helped do the release last friday. `_unrefActive` with optimizations with heap timers. At CascadiaJS the next of the week to get people’s feedback. +* Julien Gilli: Released 0.12.6 last week, working on setting up other people to do joyent/node releases, joyent/node issue triage +* Chris Dickinson: Working on docs more, have a new tool for docs to make sure the links are correct in a tree of docs, started a collaborator check-in on the io.js issue tracker, hopefully will be weekly. +Jeremiah: what is that doctool? +Chris: “count-docula”, a MDAST-based tool to verify correctness of the docs. +* Shigeki Ohtsu: Not much on io.js, preparing to update OpenSSL tonight to get the OpenSSL security fix out. +* Trevor Norris: Investigating the UTF8 decoder security issue and working on the fix. Reviewing PRs and being involved in the W3C Web Assembly working group. +* Domenic Denicola: Not much on io.js, travelling, stress testing the vm module. +* Brian White: Triaging issues, working on the javascript http parser more & benchmarking it. +* Rod Vagg: We should discuss the LTS proposal again since there was lots of work done on that. Working on lots, including the security fix from last friday (writing up a post-mortem for it), getting external people involved to review our security processes. + +### Default Unhandled Rejection Detection Behavior [#830](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/830) + +* Domenic: let’s say there was a magic way to detect when an error in an err-back style callback was not handled, what would we do? Print to stderr? +* Bert: We do have a history of printing things to stderr. We should follow browser semantics if we can, in favor of primnting a warning but nothing else. +* Discussion about the technicalities of handling unhandledRejections +* Rod: not sure we should do anything since detecting this is somewhat arbitrary. +* Domenic: there is a proposal for this that chrome implements behind a flag that comes close to how the unhandledRejection hook in node works +* Discussion about the technicalities of having a better hook for printing a warning after garbage collection of an unhandled rejection. +* See this thread for background detail of options in v8: https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3093#c1 +* Action: nothing now, maybe if v8 adds a hook for when rejections get garbage collected. +* Domenic: looking at v8, it seems to have most of the hooks, so this may be possible soon. + +### Adding a "mentor-available" label [#25618](https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/25618) + +* Folks are interested in contributing to larger tasks, need mentors to help them understand the process. Should we add a label? +* Julien: Many people are interested in making “deeper” contributions, but they need a mentor. Let people add a mentor-available tag so they can locate these. +* … part of the discussion missing here ... +* Resolution: let’s try it, one such label has already been added. + +### Having more people managing releases for Node.js v0.10.x and v0.12.x + +* Julien: I will have less time to do releases; it needs to become more of a team effort. +* Alexis: in the long term this will be a responsibility of the build team. +* Julien: unsure how responsibilities will be decided. LTS will need to sign off and build will need to produce the release. +* Jeremiah: the iojs/current releases are already a group effort. It’s just that the “long-term” v0.10/v0.12 releases fall on few individuals now. +* Julien: it’s a bit too much to handle for one person. Also people are sometimes unavailable or on vacation. Would like to have a group of about four people. +* Ben: more contributors recently signed up. I think Sam Roberts might be interested. +* Julien: would like to have a release management team. +* Chris: iojs has had the release manager propose other release managers. Open an issue for this. +* Resolved as such. + +### lts: LTS Proposal https://github.com/nodejs/LTS#proposed-lts)/ Proposal: Release Process [#1997](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/1997) + +* James: when are we cutting over to the converged stream? Thinking of late august, first LTS release in October. Is this a good time? Most users won’t start migrating until next year because of the holidays. +* Julien: what are other projects doing, when do they release? +* James: looking it into it, some do it in fall. No clear pattern. +* Alexis: what is the benefit of being on a fixed release schedule? +* James: benefit is it makes planning easier. +* Trevor: coming from the enterprise side, not having a predictable release schedule isn’t useful. +* Steven: ICU and Unicode has announced that there will be a yearly release. It’s been helpful for planning. +* James: It also ties into our regular release schedule and merging next into master etc. The next-to-master merge defines when we can do an LTS release. This should happen at least twice a year. The LTS is cut just before a merge (major bump), so by the time a LTS is cut it should have been stable for half a year. +* James: please kick tires on this proposal, get feedback from the user communities you’re connected to wrt the frequency and release date. +* Rod: the TSC should consider the timeframe, and the requirement that there should be two next-to-master merge yearly. +* Trevor: how does this fit with a 6-week release schedule on master? +* James: depends on the schedule. +* Domenic: I don’t see the problem. Just take a 6 months old release and turn it into an LTS. +* Rod/James/Trevor: because version numbers. The LTS version number needs to be a continuation of a release version. +* Rod: fixed date, or part of the month. +* Chris, Rod: get feedback, comment on the issue + +### Next Meeting + +July 15th 2015