forked from nodejs/Release
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
doc: add minutes for meeting 2017-04-24
PR-URL: nodejs#215
- Loading branch information
Showing
1 changed file
with
95 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ | ||
| # Node.js LTS meeting 04 April 2017 | ||
|
|
||
| - Github issue: https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/201 | ||
| - Meeting Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVPtof6dZLc | ||
| - Next meeting: May 15 2017 | ||
| - Previous meetings: https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/194 | ||
| https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/185 | ||
|
|
||
| ## Present | ||
|
|
||
| - Michael Dawson (@mhdawson) | ||
| - Myles Borins (@MylesBorins) | ||
| - James Snell (@jasnell) | ||
| - Jeremiah Senkpiel (@fishrock123) | ||
| - Sam Roberts (@sam-github) | ||
| - Gibson Fahnestock (@gibfahn) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Agenda | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/LTS | ||
| - Limit push access to LTS staging branches to backport team [#199](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/199) | ||
| - Node-v8 LTS support end on 2019-12-31 to meet EOSL of openssl-1.0.2 [#186](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/186) | ||
| - Backporting test fixes to maintenance branches [#205](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/205) | ||
| - Inspector - retain support for `--inspect --debug-brk` https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/12364 (related: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/12615) | ||
| - Plan for triaging semver-minor backports in LTS meetings [#204](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/204) | ||
| - Potential Semver Minor Backports [#177](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/188) | ||
|
|
||
| ## Minutes | ||
|
|
||
| ### Limit push access to LTS staging branches to backport team [#199](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/199) | ||
|
|
||
| - Myles: knowing that only people with backporting auth allows more trust, as-is, myles has to audit the -staging branch before starting to land commits, which is time consuming. | ||
| - Myles: also, everyone should turn on signed commits | ||
| - Myles: doesn’t think 7.x-staging (current) needs this kind of protection, for now | ||
| - Gibson: +1 | ||
| - Sam: +1 | ||
| - Michael: has only pushed to -staging when asked, would this be an issue? | ||
| - Myles: would prefer to pick peoples commits to staging | ||
| - James: +1 | ||
| - Myles: mark ctc-review and give it a few days to ensure no objections? | ||
| - James: good idea | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Node-v8 LTS support end on 2019-12-31 to meet EOSL of openssl-1.0.2 [#186](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/186) | ||
|
|
||
| - Gibson: would shorten by 3 months | ||
| - Gibson: objections? | ||
| - All: … (no objections) | ||
| - Myles: what is next version of OpenSSL with long support | ||
| - Michael: 1.2? | ||
| - Myles: concerned that there is not a more proactive approach to planning when we upgrade openssl | ||
| - Michael: lets wait until 8.0, then start talking about it | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Backporting test fixes to maintenance branches [#205](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/205) | ||
|
|
||
| - Myles: there are already 2 test commits in that fix very broken behaviour | ||
| - Myles: concerned about a slippery slope, and that there isn’t a clear policy, and that one test may pull more tests in | ||
| - Myles: also concerned that anybody (not just LTS members) feel they have equal access to request backport, and if anybody can request backports, will there be too many? | ||
| - James: active, we backport things we think can go, maintainance, we only backport when people request (and after considering the request) | ||
| - Michael: feels it should be request driven, and based | ||
| - Myles: what about semver-minor? Are we going to allow minors on things in maintenance? | ||
| - Sam: I’m OK, if its high value, and VERY low risk | ||
| - James: we’ve done this on a case-by-case basis in the past (0.10, 0.12) | ||
| - Myles: OK, but we should change the process to express that people may request backports to the maintenance branch, and LTS WG will consider | ||
| - Jeremiah: we should always backport tests along with features/fixes | ||
| - Myles: need to add wording to that non-critical changes can land with LTS WG consensus, hopefully without a full meeting | ||
| - Sam: thinks the test problem under consideration is critical… | ||
| - Myles: wants critical to be high bar, something that EVERY user should update to get the fix for | ||
| - Michael: willing to take a shot at a new language | ||
| - Myles: “will land fixes into maintenance as considered necessary for the stability of the maintenance release” - but we are much less proactive in landing things. Stability is the most important value. | ||
| - ... Much description | ||
| - Myles: this specific test can land, if there are no objections, but we should change the docs and be very conservative | ||
| - ... we all seem to want to be conservative in accepting changes into maintainence releases | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Inspector - retain support for `--inspect --debug-brk` [nodejs/node#12364](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/12364) (related: [nodejs/node#12615](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/12615)) | ||
|
|
||
| - [2017-04-24 14:45] <refack> If you read me. I say remove `--inspect-brk`, it won't be adopted | ||
| - [2017-04-24 14:46] <octetcloud> refack: you listing to the LTS meeting? I'm OK with removing --inspect-brk as well. | ||
| - Gibson: thinks we should backport --inspect-brk | ||
| - Myles: `node debug` already aliased, why not alias `--debug-brk`? | ||
| - Gibson: if we are going to use `--inspect-brk` in the future, we should backport it, if we are going to instead just use `--debug-brk` in the future, we should bring it back on master. Conversation about what to do should happen in a new issue. | ||
| - [2017-04-24 15:02] <refack> octetcloud: new meta issue https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/12630 | ||
|
|
||
| ### Plan for triaging semver-minor backports in LTS meetings [#204](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/204) | ||
|
|
||
| - Gibson: can we agree on a async review process? If so, we can do triaging online. | ||
| - ... no objections in theory | ||
|
|
||
| ### Potential Semver Minor Backports [#177](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/188) | ||
|
|
||
| - Skipped this time as the list wasn't filtered. |