From bac6c8505690b93cead95ee3053353c8e625cdf0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rod Vagg Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:07:20 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] doc: add CTC meeting minutes 2016-02-10 PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/5273 Reviewed-By: James M Snell --- doc/ctc-meetings/2016-02-10.md | 167 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 167 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/ctc-meetings/2016-02-10.md diff --git a/doc/ctc-meetings/2016-02-10.md b/doc/ctc-meetings/2016-02-10.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000000..06bf35994e3ca9 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/ctc-meetings/2016-02-10.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +# Node Foundation CTC Meeting 2016-02-10 + +## Links + +* **Audio Recording**: https://soundcloud.com/node-foundation/ctc-meeting-2016-02-10 +* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5176 +* **Minutes Google Doc**: +* _Previous Minutes Google Doc: _ + +## Present + +* James Snell (CTC) +* Trevor Norris (CTC) +* Colin Ihrig (CTC) +* Brian White (CTC) +* Alexis Campailla (CTC) +* Bert Belder (CTC) +* Chris Dickinson (CTC) +* Shigeki Ohtsu (CTC) +* Steven Loomis (observer) +* Mikeal Rogers (observer) +* Fedor Indutny (CTC) +* Jeremiah Senkpiel (CTC) +* Rod Vagg (CTC) +* Ben Noordhuis (CTC) +* Nikita Skovoroda (observer) +* Ali Sheikh (observer) +* Evan Lucas (observer) +* Rich Trott (observer) +* Michael Dawson (observer) + +## Agenda + +Extracted from **ctc-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting. + +* Revert "fs: deprecate fs.read's string interface" [#5163](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/5163) & fs: add a temporary fix for re-evaluation support [#5102](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/5102) +* buffer: add Buffer.from(), Buffer.alloc() and Buffer.allocUnsafe(), soft-deprecate Buffer(num) [#4682](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/4682) & Buffer(number) is unsafe [#4660](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/4660) +* CTC Membership Nominations [#4750](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/4750) +* Seek legal advice on LICENSE and copyright blocks in code [#3979](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/3979) + +## Standup + +* Brian White: Working more on improving performance in various areas of core, reviewing PRs and issues. +* Chris Dickinson: Promises PR + discussions with the error symposium group. +* Rich Trott: addressing flaky tests, enhancing linting, working to find a path to more automation in landing of PRs (although others, including Alexis, seem to have picked that ball up, thankfully) +* James Snell: Working on express stuff in, security stuff out, buffer API finished, moving forward on string externalization. +* Jeremiah Senkpiel: Hook for unhandled rejections that detects when the GC fires on a promise. That is currently blocked on V8 bug with weak callbacks + promises. +* Chris Dickinson: Promises PR + discussions with the error symposium group. +* Trevor Norris — MakeCallback reentrant fix for HTTP parser / AsyncWrap interaction. +* Michael Dawson - Working on getting AIX up in the CI. Also on running v8 tests in the Node tree. Added AIX to libuv tests. +* Steven R. Loomis - not much to add +* Nikita Skovoroda — like ususal, mostly comments and the initial version of the codesearch API on a VPS. Nothing major. +* Rod Vagg - Security stuff, catching up on issues and discussions. Legal committee meeting yesterday. + +## Review of last meeting + +* Enable Node.js to run with Microsoft's ChakraCore engine [#4765](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/4765) +* CTC Membership Nominations [#4750](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/4750) +* buffer: add Buffer.from(), Buffer.alloc() and Buffer.allocUnsafe(), soft-deprecate Buffer(num) [#4682](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/4682) & Buffer(number) is unsafe [#4660](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/4660) +* Seek legal advice on LICENSE and copyright blocks in code [#3979](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/3979) +* @srl295: [path for full-icu data?](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/3460) - ./node_modules vs ./node/ ? (npm linkage) - todo, update ticket with meeting resolution + + +## Minutes + +### Revert "fs: deprecate fs.read's string interface" [#5163](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/5163) & fs: add a temporary fix for re-evaluation support [#5102](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/5102) + +Rod: Simple deprecation warning for the particular argument usage. Pulling in the internal util module for deprecation messes up older versions of graceful-fs (and thus older versions of npm.) The question is whether to revert the PR, or to add a helper (that Nikita proposed.) I would suggest that this is urgent enough that we need to do something about it. + +Jeremiah: This is a poor reason to revert it. +James: From everything that I’ve seen, adding the warning is the least bad option. Folks seems to be against reverting. Maybe making the warning less specific to graceful-fs. + +Ben: I don’t agree. I think it’s right to point them to the newer version. + +Jeremiah: I agree (with Ben). + +Rod: Anytime you break the build, it’s an immediate candidate for reversion. It’s not permanently reverted, but it’s “let’s fix the build.” + +Jeremiah: This doesn’t actually break CI though. It breaks newer versions of npm on master. .. It might be npm in general just on the master branch. + +James: Forrest noted that pretty much any change other than reverting will have a significant effect on the npm user base. + +Jeremiah: Yeah but we’re not shipping this in a stable. + +Michael: If it breaks in master, doesn’t that prevent folks from doing other tests? + +Ben: I think the problem lies with npm here. + +Mikeal: You make that sound so easy. + +Ben: The version of npm we’re talking about is still in a PR, yes? + +Jeremiah: We don’t regularly run tests on master, so it might already be broken. I can test it right now.. + +Rod: I think Myles has been trying to run the npm tests more regularly, as part of smoke testing — and it’s broken for the smoke testing now. + +Michael: It seems like we’d want to keep things as green as possible. It seems like we’d want npm to do something. + +Rod: It’s a fact of life that we exist in an ecosystem that has these kinds of issues. My vote is to revert, and then revisit after we’ve gotten the build fixed. + +Ben: Well, yeah, I do. I think Nikita’s PR is an acceptable intermediate solution. + +Jeremiah: Likewise. The resolution is that we try to require it, if that fails, we use a deprecation helper we build in that emits a warning that something is breaking an internal module — that would fix it and seems quite reasonable. It will also help people note where stuff is going to break. + +Rod: Does someone want to help Nikita get this in? + +Ben: Didn’t you already get a couple of LGTMs? + +James: I think there’s one -1 and three LGTMs. + +Rod: We can force it if we have to. + +James: I propose: if we accept this now, let’s try to get it resolved better before v6 goes out — which gives us a deadline so it’s not pushed off indefinitely. npm gets a fix, and that’s where it happens. + +Ben: I think it’s a good idea to push npm to update their dependencies. Whether or not npm updates, I think it’s a good idea to include Nikita’s PR. + +Jeremiah: I think so too. + +Rod: Let’s take it back to GitHub. + +### buffer: add Buffer.from(), Buffer.alloc() and Buffer.allocUnsafe(), soft-deprecate Buffer(num) [#4682](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/4682) & Buffer(number) is unsafe [#4660](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/4660) + +James: There were some changes I was waiting for from Trevor w/r/t fill encoding. There was a desire to bikeshed a bit more on the name, not sure if you want to do that here. I think absent that the PR is probably in a place where we can land it. + +Rod: Sounds like we need a last call for objections, otherwise it’s going in. + +James: Yep. + +Rod: How about you do that on GitHub? + +James: OK. + +Jeremiah: Are you adding a zero-fill flag? + +James: Yes — it will switch all allocations to use calloc under the hood. The one thing this does not do is change the default behavior of `new Buffer(size)`. If we did that, it would be a breaking change going back to 0.10. + +Bert: Is the plan to deprecate it off the table? + +James: It’s a soft deprecate — docs only. + +Jeremiah: We should try to just deprecate it. The problem is that folks are running different versions against modules, and it would be bad to rely on zero-fill behavior where it doesn’t exist [CD — didn’t capture this entirely] + +James: We need to refine our deprecation strategy — and define whether something is deprecated vs. end-of-life. Will probably be returning to that next week or the week after. + +Rod: It sounds like we’ve got a way forward, here. + +Bert: It’s ugly but I won’t object. + +Rod: Noted. + +### CTC Membership Nominations [#4750](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/4750) + +Rod: We should start to line up a vote. + +### Seek legal advice on LICENSE and copyright blocks in code [#3979](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/3979) + +Rod: There was a PR that Mikeal put in that updates the DCO from v1.0 to v1.1. If you’d like to review that, please comment on that. + +### Other business + +James noted that the express application landed today. I will be working to move that into the new organization. More of an update on tomorrow’s TSC call. + +Jeremiah notes that he will be a bit preoccupied by that for a while. + +## Next Meeting + +2016-02-17