From 2493ecba8eb4598d091297eb8fc07fbc42c27749 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Dawson Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:29:39 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] doc: add minutes for CTC meeting 29 March 2017 --- meetings/2017-03-29.md | 188 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 188 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meetings/2017-03-29.md diff --git a/meetings/2017-03-29.md b/meetings/2017-03-29.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d0d95a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2017-03-29.md @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@ +# Node Foundation CTC Meeting 2017-03-29 + +## Links + +* **Audio recording**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzzRR9e0uPM +* **GitHub Issue**: [CTC#85](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/85) +* **Minutes Google Doc**: +* _Previous Minutes Google Doc: _ + +## Present + +* Anna Henningsen @addaleax (CTC) +* Bradley Meck @bmeck (observer/GoDaddy/TC39) +* Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (CTC) +* Colin Ihrig @cjihrig (CTC) +* Evan Lucas @evanlucas (CTC) +* Franziska Hinkelmann @fhinkel (CTC) +* Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 (CTC) +* James M Snell @jasnell (CTC) +* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (CTC) +* Brian White @mscdex (CTC) +* Ali Ijaz Sheikh @ofrobots (CTC) +* Seth Thompson @s3ththompson (observer/Google) +* MichaëZasso @targos (CTC) +* Trevor Norris @trevnorris (CTC) +* Rich Trott @Trott (CTC) + + +## Standup + +* Anna Henningsen @addaleax (CTC) + * Issues & PR review + * ABI-stable native module API review in particular +* Bradley Meck @bmeck (observer/GoDaddy/TC39) + * CC port for ESM underway + * onboarded Guy Bedford from SystemJS to help +* Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (CTC) + * Mostly issue and PR cNothing worth mentioning +* Colin Ihrig @cjihrig (CTC) + * Issues and PRs. +* Evan Lucas @evanlucas (CTC) + * nothing of note +* Franziska Hinkelmann @fhinkel (CTC) + * PR backlog +* Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 (CTC) + * Promise Unhandled rejection GC new pr thing https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/12010 +* James M Snell @jasnell (CTC) + * landing PRs getting ready for 8.0.0 +* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (CTC) + * Away last week at Devoxx conference + * Build WG meeting + * AIX/disk speed discussions + * N-API review/work + * foundation npm user + * misc review/comment/land +* Brian White @mscdex (CTC) + * _Finally_ finished next set of `fs` optimizations + * Updated/Rebased own open PRs + * Commented on issues, reviewed PRs +* Ali Ijaz Sheikh @ofrobots (CTC) + * not too much of note +* Seth Thompson @s3ththompson (observer/Google) + * v8 team working on landing TurboFan + Ignition in V8 5.9 +* MichaëZasso @targos (CTC) + * Nothing of note +* Trevor Norris @trevnorris (CTC) + * asynchooks PR +* Rich Trott @Trott (CTC) + * lots of little things, but let.s talk about Buffer right now... + +## Agenda + +### nodejs/node + +* buffer: auto random fill Buffer(num) and new Buffer(num) [#11808](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/11808) +* buffer: discuss future direction of Buffer constructor API [#9531](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/9531) + +## Previous Meeting Review + +* buffer: discuss future direction of Buffer constructor API [node#9531](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/9531) +* module: add support for abi stable module API [node#11975](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/11975) + +## Minutes + +### buffer: auto random fill Buffer(num) and new Buffer(num) [#11808](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/11808) and buffer: discuss future direction of Buffer constructor API [#9531](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/9531) + +* Rich started by framing the current state of the issue. Some + consensus that we should do something. Had looked like + option to do opt-in deprecate flag was non-controversial, but + seems like there is some questioning/objections. +* We may need to start with if we are going to state that it + will be deprecated at some point as that affects people.s + decisions on the other issues. +* James: we need 3 distinct votes + * commit to runtime deprecation and timeframe + * do we put in pending deprecation + * do we random fill or zero fill by default, and do we backport +* Let.s start with are we going to commit to deprecate or not + * James, feedback from module developers, don.t do it, zero fill + by default instead, most people did not think it should be + Backported. + * Ali, spreadsheet before option of additional flag ? does this + affect how people voted, + * James, don.t think we are going to reach natural consensus, + need vote. Seconded by Rich + + * Vote1: Should we now commit to deprecating Buffer() constructor + at a specific point in the future or leave it as is. + Specifically, deprecating all combinations of Buffer() + constructor that are not specifically required by + subclassing Uint8Array. + Specific point might mean a specific version or when the + ecosystem usage drops below threshold, or something else + (a separate question). I.e. are we going to announce now that + this is going to be runtime-deprecated at some future point, + possibly without defining that future point now. + + **YES** (**Commit** to deprecating): @chalker, @targos, @mscdex, @fhinkel + + **NO** (Do not **commit** to deprecating): @evanlucas, @addaleax, @jasnell, + @ofrobots, @Fishrock123, @mhdawson, @cjihrig + + **ABSTAIN**: @trott, @trevnorris + + Need to take back to github, to get additional CTC members to vote. + + * Vote2: Do we do a conditional pending deprecation warning. + Normal deprecation warning which will only be seen if if they opt in with + a flag. + + **YES**: @chalker, @ofrobots, @targos, @trott, @addaleax, @mhdawson, + @jasnell + + **NO**: @cjihrig, @evanlucas, @mscdex, @fhinkel + + **ABSTAIN**: @fishrock123, @trevnorris + + Take back to github and get additional votes. + + * Vote3: Do we switch to automatically fill for 8.0 and higher. + + **Zero**: @jasnell, @fishrock123, @ofrobots, @trevnorris, @mhdawson, + @targos, @addaleax, @evanlucas, @cjihrig + + **Random**: @addaleax, @cjihrig, @targos, @fhinkel + + **Neither**: @mscdex, @chalker + + **Abstain**: + + * Vote 4: If we chose to fill, do we backport (semver-minor) + + **ALL**: @fishrock123, @trott, @jasnell + + **7**: + + **6**: + + **4**: + + **NONE**: @mscdex, @mhdawson, @evanlucas, @fhinkel + + **ABSTAIN**: @targos, @cjihrig, @addaleax, @ofrobots + + **ABSTAIN ONLY IF ALL**: @chalker (NO for partial backport) + + Take vote back to github to collect rest of votes + +## Q&A, Other + +* question about what kinds of questions are ok. General questions + are ok, but those requesting help are best raised in the help repo. +* question about what would be the best database to use with node. + Suggestion was to raise in the help repo + +## Upcoming Meetings + +* **Node.js Foundation Calendar**: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=kap.co_i17i575te0aes6kaanfjr2e4hs%40group.calendar.google.com + +Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar. + +* **Collaborators Summit**: May 4-5, + [summit#39](https://github.com/nodejs/summit/issues/39) +* **TC39 Meetup**: May 22, + [CTC#67](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/67) +* **Call with V8 team**: March 30, 6 am CEST (in ~11 hours) + [CTC #76] (https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/76) +* **CTC**: Apr 5, 2000 UTC From 137654702944272d5d3f879f85f40f26e887355b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Dawson Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:09:45 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] squash: address first set of comments --- meetings/2017-03-29.md | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/meetings/2017-03-29.md b/meetings/2017-03-29.md index d0d95a5..4ed6bb4 100644 --- a/meetings/2017-03-29.md +++ b/meetings/2017-03-29.md @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ * Trevor Norris @trevnorris (CTC) * asynchooks PR * Rich Trott @Trott (CTC) - * lots of little things, but let.s talk about Buffer right now... + * lots of little things, but let's talk about Buffer right now... ## Agenda @@ -89,19 +89,19 @@ option to do opt-in deprecate flag was non-controversial, but seems like there is some questioning/objections. * We may need to start with if we are going to state that it - will be deprecated at some point as that affects people.s + will be deprecated at some point as that affects people's decisions on the other issues. * James: we need 3 distinct votes * commit to runtime deprecation and timeframe * do we put in pending deprecation * do we random fill or zero fill by default, and do we backport -* Let.s start with are we going to commit to deprecate or not - * James, feedback from module developers, don.t do it, zero fill +* Let's start with are we going to commit to deprecate or not + * James, feedback from module developers, don't do it, zero fill by default instead, most people did not think it should be Backported. * Ali, spreadsheet before option of additional flag ? does this affect how people voted, - * James, don.t think we are going to reach natural consensus, + * James, don't think we are going to reach natural consensus, need vote. Seconded by Rich * Vote1: Should we now commit to deprecating Buffer() constructor @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ Need to take back to github, to get additional CTC members to vote. * Vote2: Do we do a conditional pending deprecation warning. - Normal deprecation warning which will only be seen if if they opt in with + Normal deprecation warning which will only be seen if they opt in with a flag. **YES**: @chalker, @ofrobots, @targos, @trott, @addaleax, @mhdawson, @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ **Abstain**: - * Vote 4: If we chose to fill, do we backport (semver-minor) + * Vote 4: If we choose to fill, do we backport (semver-minor) **ALL**: @fishrock123, @trott, @jasnell