diff --git a/doc/meetings/2017-04-24.md b/doc/meetings/2017-04-24.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..591ed2c --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/meetings/2017-04-24.md @@ -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] If you read me. I say remove `--inspect-brk`, it won't be adopted +- [2017-04-24 14:46] 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] 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.