Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2017-05-03

[Trott]

Time

UTC Wed 03-May-2017 05:00 (05:00 AM):

Timezone	Date/Time
US / Pacific	Tue 02-May-2017 22:00 (10:00 PM)
US / Mountain	Tue 02-May-2017 23:00 (11:00 PM)
US / Central	Wed 03-May-2017 00:00 (12:00 AM)
US / Eastern	Wed 03-May-2017 01:00 (01:00 AM)
Amsterdam	Wed 03-May-2017 07:00 (07:00 AM)
Moscow	Wed 03-May-2017 08:00 (08:00 AM)
Chennai	Wed 03-May-2017 10:30 (10:30 AM)
Tokyo	Wed 03-May-2017 14:00 (02:00 PM)
Sydney	Wed 03-May-2017 15:00 (03:00 PM)

Or in your local time:

• http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Node.js+Foundation+Core%20Technical%20Committee%20(CTC)+Meeting+2017-05-03&iso=20170503T05
• or http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5am+UTC%2C+May+03%2C+2017+in+local+time

Links

• Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e0q_mf145UOl5MDegvq15A26yLRX_FR6htKlFnangow
• Previous Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jxUvnQwtB6G08FfMDjVOWd_giulbVmmBXqXxB_QpzF4

Agenda

Extracted from ctc-agenda labelled issues and pull requests from the nodejs org prior to the meeting.

nodejs/node

• lib,src: eagerly exit process on unhanded promise rejections #12734
• util: add util.promisify() #12442
• Upgrade openssl-1.1.0e for Node-v8 (DO NOT LAND THIS) #11828

Invited

• Anna Henningsen @addaleax (CTC)
• Bradley Meck @bmeck (observer/GoDaddy/TC39)
• Ben Noordhuis @bnoordhuis (CTC)
• Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (CTC)
• Colin Ihrig @cjihrig (CTC)
• Evan Lucas @evanlucas (CTC)
• Franziska Hinkelmann @fhinkel (CTC)
• Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 (CTC)
• Tracy Hinds @hackygolucky (observer/Node.js Foundation)
• Fedor Indutny @indutny (CTC)
• James M Snell @jasnell (CTC)
• Josh Gavant @joshgav (observer/Microsoft)
• Michael Dawson @mhdawson (CTC)
• Julien Gilli @misterdjules (CTC)
• Mikeal Rogers @mikeal (observer/Node.js Foundation)
• Brian White @mscdex (CTC)
• Myles Borins @MylesBorins (CTC)
• Ali Ijaz Sheikh @ofrobots (CTC)
• Jenn Turner @renrutnnej (observer/Node.js Foundation)
• Rod Vagg @rvagg (CTC)
• Shigeki Ohtsu @shigeki (CTC)
• Steven R Loomis @srl295 (observer/IBM/ICU)
• Michaël Zasso @targos (CTC)
• Sakthipriyan Vairamani @thefourtheye (CTC)
• Trevor Norris @trevnorris (CTC)
• Rich Trott @Trott (CTC)
• Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (observer)
• Matteo Collina @mcollina (observer)

Notes

The agenda comes from issues labelled with ctc-agenda across all of the repositories in the nodejs org. Please label any additional issues that should be on the agenda before the meeting starts.

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.

[bmeck]

I'll be there for once!

[jasnell]

I'll be on a flight to Berlin. If they come to a decision point, I am +1 on util.promisify and the throwing on uncaught rejection. However, for the latter I have yet to get through the full pr.

[Trott]

and the throwing on uncaught rejection. However, for the latter I have yet to get through the full pr.

I'm surprised that had a ctc-agenda label applied immediately on opening with no explanation. I thought we generally discourage that. It's been open for 3 days and there seems to be robust discussion in the issue tracker about it, so it would seem to me that putting it on the agenda is premature. Was it an accident/mistake? /cc @Fishrock123?

[Trott]

The number of items on the ctc-review list continues to inch up. Any help getting resolution on these or closing ones that have in fact achieved resolution would be awesome. (Maybe some of you attending the Collaborators Summit this week can figure the right configuration of people to gather in a room to resolve some of these?)

• module: remove require('.') with NODE_PATH compat
• http: don't inherit from Object.prototype
• doc: add active, enroll and unenroll
• async_hooks initial implementation
• stream: move prefixed files into internal/streams.
• lib,src: exit process on unhandled promise rejection cleanup
• fs: Optimizations 3: The Revenge
• Emeritus status for CTC
• Who should have access to the security repo ?
• Why do people need/want to be org owners
• src: add require transform pipeline
• regression: 3rd party debuggers are incompatible with node8 nighlies
• Forming a GYP WG
• Uniform way to trigger debugger on first line
• Confirmation that the stability definition is correct
• lib,src: eagerly exit process on unhanded promise rejections

[Trott]

For nodejs/node#12630 ("Uniform way to trigger debugger on first line"), we agreed to let it go back to the issue tracker for a week to see where things went.

It is now on the Diagnostics WG meeting agenda for May 11. I propose awaiting the result of the Diagnostics WG discussion. (Maybe they can try to talk about it in the tracker ahead of the meeting to get resolution sooner.) If I understand correctly, we want some resolution before Node.js 8.0.0. That would seem to give enough time?

[refack]

It is now on the Diagnostics WG meeting agenda for May 11

AFAIK @jasnell set the node8 cutoff to May 9th, right?
FWIW I'll try to get the vendors to give explicit preference on future syntax...

[jasnell]

@Trott ... If that's the earliest they can resolve it, then ok. But having resolution by the 9th would be best, especially if that requires any semver-major changes. If it can be done as a minor then there is much more flexibility.

[jasnell]

nodejs/node#12701 Can likely be taken off ctc-review. I have an open pr that resolves it that will likely land in the next day or so unless there's an objection I haven't seen yet...

[refack]

IMHO you can exchange
regression: 3rd party debuggers are incompatible with node8 nighlies
with it's solving PR
inspector: restore --debug-brk alias
for discussion on the current regression.

The wider issues is covered in
Uniform way to trigger debugger on first line

Sorry for the brain dumps in both 😳 the more recent comments should be decent summaries...

[bnoordhuis]

The number of items on the ctc-review list continues to inch up.

Unless anyone speaks up in the next 24 hours or so, I'm going to remove the label again from issues that have had it for more than two or three weeks.

[Fishrock123]

I'm surprised that had a ctc-agenda label applied immediately on opening with no explanation. I thought we generally discourage that. It's been open for 3 days and there seems to be robust discussion in the issue tracker about it, so it would seem to me that putting it on the agenda is premature. Was it an accident/mistake? /cc @Fishrock123?

These options have been discussed for about a year and collectively we don't seem to be able to decide so we might as well talk about it?

[mhdawson]

It's not clear why this one is on the agenda:

Upgrade openssl-1.1.0e for Node-v8 (DO NOT LAND THIS) #11828

I think the decision was made to stick with 1.02 for Node version 8. Is this to discuss for version 9 or is it on the agenda for some other reason ?

[mhdawson]

Its going to be too early for me even though I will be in the UK.

[Trott]

@Trott ... If that's the earliest they can resolve it, then ok. But having resolution by the 9th would be best, especially if that requires any semver-major changes. If it can be done as a minor then there is much more flexibility.

@jasnell If they're up for it, maybe @nodejs/diagnostics can make an effort to come to a resolution asynchronously via GitHub or email to get you the answer sooner. (And/or maybe this is something that can be hashed out at the Collaborators Summit?)