|
| 1 | +# Node.js Release WorkGroup Meeting 2023-03-09 |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Links |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +* **Recording**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQUApH01jRA&t=1633s |
| 6 | +* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/830 |
| 7 | +* **Minutes Google Doc**: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1htIwyXRwT61t89_z9SJTwaOOdE6yzCEAf0r5UqFKVKA |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## Present |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +* Beth Griggs (@BethGriggs) |
| 12 | +* Danielle Adams (@danielleadams) |
| 13 | +* Juan Jose (@juanarbol) |
| 14 | +* Michael Zasso (@targos) |
| 15 | +* Rafael Gonzaga (@RafaelGSS) |
| 16 | +* Richard Lau (@richardlau) |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +## Agenda |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +## Announcements |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +* nodejs/nodejs.org rewrite in Next.js has landed. |
| 23 | + * The release post generation script now relies on the native fetch API so will need to be run on versions where it is available (Node.js 18+ by default). |
| 24 | +* Node.js 18.15.0 released by Juan this week. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +### Release Schedules |
| 27 | +* Release plan - v19.x Current [#793](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/793) |
| 28 | + * Michael volunteered for the April release. |
| 29 | +* Release plan - v18.x Active LTS [#737](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/737) |
| 30 | + * Danielle volunteered for the next release. |
| 31 | +* Release plan - v16.x Maintenance [#658](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/658) |
| 32 | + * Beth volunteered to put a draft proposal together with a TBD date until we get enough content. |
| 33 | + * Potential test runner PRs that we should review. |
| 34 | +* Release plan - v14.x Maintenance LTS [#567](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/567) |
| 35 | + * We should plan for one more release to happen before EOL and consider what would be good to land (root certificate updates, or similar.) |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +### nodejs/Release |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +* Confusion around semver-minor commits [#820](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/820) |
| 41 | + * Discussed at the last meeting. |
| 42 | + * PR opened to clarify the existing approach [nodejs/node#46592](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/46592) |
| 43 | + * (Action) Beth to add a comment and close. |
| 44 | +* Plans for npm 9 [#778](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/778) |
| 45 | + * Desire to discuss aligning release dates in future. |
| 46 | + * Removing from the agenda. |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +### nodejs/release-keys |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +* v18 and v19 are signed by a public key not captured in this keyring [#21](https://github.com/nodejs/release-keys/issues/21) |
| 52 | + * Keyring wasn’t updated, but should now be with Juan’s latest PR. |
| 53 | + * (Action) Beth to check which keys are in the keyring and also [nodejs/release-keys#23](https://github.com/nodejs/release-keys/issues/23). |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +## Q&A, Other |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +* node-core-utils |
| 58 | + * Link to Rafael’s security prepare PR [nodejs/node-core-utils#665](https://github.com/nodejs/node-core-utils/pull/665) |
| 59 | + * Agreed to stick to a two-step approach initially until `git node land --security` functionality is added. |
| 60 | + * Richard tested for the last set of security releases and noted a small issue regarding changelog links (potentially unrelated to the PR). |
| 61 | + * (Richard) Suggestion to add an option to run individual steps such as regenerating the changelog. |
| 62 | + * Rafael volunteered to be assigned to this. |
| 63 | + * FYI of the PR for deprecation numbers [nodejs/node-core-utils#685](https://github.com/nodejs/node-core-utils/pull/685) |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +* Node.js 20 |
| 66 | + * Rafael is planning the proposal for early April. |
| 67 | + * Platforms support |
| 68 | + * (Action) Create an issue capturing platforms. |
| 69 | + * Reviewing toolchain requirements (gcc 10, C++ 20, etc.) |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +* Proposal: notable-changes bot comment for summaries [#821](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/821) |
| 72 | + * TSC label bot also suggested. |
| 73 | + * Beth to take a look at implementing both as it will involve similar logic. |
0 commit comments