Node.js Foundation Modules Team Meeting 2019-01-30

[MylesBorins]

Time

UTC Wed 30-Jan-2019 20:00 (08:00 PM):

Timezone	Date/Time
US / Pacific	Wed 30-Jan-2019 12:00 (12:00 PM)
US / Mountain	Wed 30-Jan-2019 13:00 (01:00 PM)
US / Central	Wed 30-Jan-2019 14:00 (02:00 PM)
US / Eastern	Wed 30-Jan-2019 15:00 (03:00 PM)
London	Wed 30-Jan-2019 20:00 (08:00 PM)
Amsterdam	Wed 30-Jan-2019 21:00 (09:00 PM)
Moscow	Wed 30-Jan-2019 23:00 (11:00 PM)
Chennai	Thu 31-Jan-2019 01:30 (01:30 AM)
Hangzhou	Thu 31-Jan-2019 04:00 (04:00 AM)
Tokyo	Thu 31-Jan-2019 05:00 (05:00 AM)
Sydney	Thu 31-Jan-2019 07:00 (07:00 AM)

Or in your local time:

• http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Node.js+Foundation+Modules%20Team+Meeting+2019-01-30&iso=20190130T20
• or http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=08PM+UTC%2C+Jan+30%2C+2019+in+local+time

Links

• Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yx4k1syLuMU_98sa2ASu3mgXSJ4-9Lac8uWzqIlEoYc/edit
• Previous Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JTNIz5XMoKKAxyKF4pC-GoK9Wy3ZUIF0EwsUezZ87L8/edit

Agenda

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

Announcements

• --eval, STDIN, and extensionless files #251

Discussion

• Slack channel #249
  • 5 minute timebox
• Dynamic Modules Development in Node.js #24894
  • 15 minute timebox
• Minimum to release? #253
  • 15 minute timebox
• WIP [Do not merge] - Irp type dynamic modules #29
  • 15 minute timebox
  • Refs:
    • Mode: esm proposal #247
• Import file specifier proposal implementation #256
  • 5 minute timebox

Invited

• Modules team: @nodejs/modules

Notes

The agenda comes from issues labelled with modules-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

• link for participants: https://zoom.us/j/656987750
• For those who just want to watch: https://www.youtube.com/c/nodejs+foundation/live

[MylesBorins]

Lots of items @guybedford and @GeoffreyBooth is this an accurate representation of proposals to discuss and enough time?

[GeoffreyBooth]

Let’s bump “minimum to release” to next meeting? After tomorrow’s meeting I’ll create a new issue to survey members on that so we have real data on that before we discuss it, and not a thread that got hijacked. I want to wait until after the meeting though to see if we hopefully merge in the import file specifier proposal implementation, as that would provide a new baseline for what remaining features people would want before releasing.

Perhaps we could reorder from least to most controversial? So I think that would be:

• Slack channel
• Import file specifier proposal implementation
• --eval, STDIN, and extensionless files (this is just a call for interested parties to join a working group, nothing more yet; but assumes import file specifier proposal implementation is approved)
• Dynamic modules

I’m hoping that the earlier items should hopefully take less time than their timebox, saving more time for dynamic modules.

[guybedford]

Added the agenda label to the Dynamic Modules issue here - #252 (comment). It would be great to include at least 10 minutes for this if possible.

[guybedford]

Ahh, I see this is already covered by #24894, 10 mins would be preferable I think though over 5.

[weswigham]

Ah. It's been ended.

Anyways, I was going to ask this when we were done, but will we be able to get a set of the tc39's concerns with dynamic modules and who objected to what, so we can specifically iterate to alleviate those concerns and run the changes by those individuals before bringing the proposal forward again? Because this whole "do something that seems ok in our group and then bring it to the other group once a month where different people show up with different concerns" is a really long winded process, and since we're looking to accelerate the time we're doing things in, short circuiting that through direct collaboration is probably a way we can work through it in a reasonable timeframe.

[ljharb]

My understanding of the bulk of the concern is the same as @jdalton's; that export * from 'cjs' in a cycle wouldn't work.

[weswigham]

Brad and Myles mentioned some other concerns, too, though (something about editing SourceTextModuleRecord at all among some others), and the people with those concerns will also need to be worked with. I don't think zeroing in on one issue is going to help too much with going forward (although I'm personally sure that's fixable if you're OK with larger spec adjustments) if the same people speak up again with the same concerns the next time it's brought forward.

[MylesBorins]

I'll follow up with folks who had concerns to get a list together

[arcanis]

I was looking at the minutes regarding the "Minimum to release?" thread (and particularly with regard to loaders, as PnP would be a good guinea pig), but it's not clear to me whether there's been a resolution¹. Would someone have more details?

_{¹ pun intended}

[MylesBorins]

We will have a full resolution by next meeting, but afaict loaders will be necessary for the minimum to release

…

On Feb 1, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Maël Nison ***@***.***> wrote: I was looking at the minutes regarding the "Minimum to release?" thread (and particularly with regard to loaders, as PnP would be a good guinea pig), but it's not clear to me whether there's been a resolution1. Would someone have more details? 1 pun intended — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#258 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecVz3uxE12wUmNFPIGsB0t9AGpPZxpks5vJHK-gaJpZM4aZHq->.