diff --git a/doc/meetings/2017-06-05.md b/doc/meetings/2017-06-05.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8e959ad --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/meetings/2017-06-05.md @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +# Node.js LTS meeting 05 May 2017 + +- [Github Issue](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/225) +- [Meeting Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSo6YiKzc5M) +- [Previous meeting](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/213) +- Next meeting: 26 June 2017 + + +## Present + +- James Snell +- Jeremiah Senkpiel +- Myles Borins +- Michael Dawson +- Sam Roberts +- Gibson Fahnestock + + +## Minutes + +### Chartering the Release Team as a Working Group [nodejs/CTC#123](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/123) + +- James: we need to make sure we involve the other release team members + (evanlucas, cjihrig, italoacasas). +- Myles: We don’t want to start forcing people to come to meetings +- Myles: Maybe we could have a quarterly meeting for release and backporting + teams to come together and discuss WG stuff. +- Gibson: Is there anything that the LTS team would do that isn’t covered by + the sub-teams? +- Myles: Doesn’t seem like it. +- Myles: It would be good to make it so that it’s easier for people to get + involved in LTS without needing to give them permissions, we had Nathan from + ember-cli who wanted to get involved for example. +- Myles: This might start to get convoluted. +- James: I think we just have one overarching team that includes a releasers + team and a backporting team. +- Myles: Okay, then should we just call the top-level WG Release and the + teams LTS and Releasers. +- James: we need to be really clear about the what the Release team are, are we + talking about changing the names? +- Jeremiah: The name for the current release team doesn’t need to be really + concise, they don’t get mentioned much. +- James: So we’re all agreed on the structure, we can just bikeshed the names, + the names below are not decided on, maybe we can come up with better ones: + +1. The overarching Release Working Group - name is TBD, some good ideas wanted +2. The Releasers team, who have permissions to actually build and publish releases +3. The Backport team, who have permission to land commits on LTS branches +4. The CitGM team + +- Myles: Open question: does group 1 vote on whether PRs will go into LTS, or just group 3? +- James: Why not just say that only people in one of the subteams can vote. +- Jeremiah: Teams are cheap on Github, so we can always have more teams. +- Myles: True, but that adds to the cognitive load. +- Gibson: This only applies to people who’ve done enough to join the WG, but + aren’t planning to do the work to join one of the subteams. Not sure this + will ever be non-academic. +- Myles: So what should the top-level team be called? +- All: Let’s take this bikeshed offline. +- Jeremiah: WRT naming, I think the key thing is to make it clear for outsiders + to our process (what does this WG actually mean?) +- Sam: ^---- agree with Jeremiah on clarity for outsiders, which is what makes a + Release WG and a Release Team problematic, IMO, because it’s using the same + word for the whole and a part. But I can’t think of better names. +- Myles: Maybe we could have a schedule for current releases as well, like + we’ve been doing for LTS. That might be something we could discuss in + Quarterly meetings. +- Jeremiah: I think every other week is a reasonable cadence, I’d want to make +- Gibson: Should we invite the release team to the next meeting? +- Michael: don’t want to drag them into a meeting off the bat. +- James: I think we should do both, let’s aim to make a decision at the next + meeting, and make sure we get release involved before then. +- Myles: We should evaluate which of the tools we use for releases might fall + under the purview of the release team (e.g. installers, branch-diff, + changelog-maker, blogpost-maker, the releases themselves, citgm) +- James: I think several of the tools we use should be brought into the + foundation, and maybe come under release (like branch-diff). The installers + is currently a self-contained thing. +- James: I think CitGM is a good example, build provides the machines to run + CitGM on (and to run tests on) but the CitGM team owns the code. +- Myles: It just seems weird to me that release is this thing with loads of + floating bits, is there value in bringing them all together. +- Michael: I don’t see it’s useful to suck them all into releases. +- James: Keeping CitGM under release WG makes it easier to do things like + enforce it for releases. +- Michael: We require test runs though, tests don’t come under release +- James: I think we should bring CitGM in from the start. +- Myles: I think this is going to get even bigger, there will be other teams + coming under the Release WG. +- Michael: The important thing is to make sure it’s easy for people to join + later. +- James: So if we include CitGM, are we giving them new responsibility? +- Myles: No, the WG doesn’t have any special responsibility unless you're in a + particular team. +- Myles: We need to check with @nodejs/build to make sure team permissions get + updated (e.g. on CI). +- James: Need to update the LTS repo name to WG name, and update the Github teams. +- James: Governance? +- Michael: Already in the PR. +- Myles: We need to make sure redirects actually work. +- James: It should, but yes. +- James: The governance process follows the boilerplate, we should all go + through and make sure it’s actually correct, it’s pretty heavyweight. For + example we need to make sure we’re clear that people don’t have to start + joining meetings. +- James: We need to be clear in the governance about the process for removing + someone from the release team. + + +### Shipping V8 in Node 8 [nodejs/node#13263](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/13263) + +- Myles: 5.8 has been patched for 6.0, but 5.9 doesn’t have the patches in the + PR. +- Myles: The patch would take a day or two to put together. +- James: When does 6.0 get released? +- Myles: 6 weeks. +- Myles: There’s already been an API/ABI freeze on 6.0 (which is what we cut + against). +- Myles: I’d almost opt to skip 5.9 and go with 6.0, there will be lots of + fixes in 6.0 for regressions in 5.9. +- Myles: I can ask the V8 team. +- All: we shouldn’t land the 5.9 update on 8.x until it has the 6.0 patch. +- Myles: If it’s going to take us 3 weeks to stabilise on 5.9, for 3 weeks + advance notice of 5.9, then it’s not really worthwhile. +- Jeremiah: We should consider having a branch that has 5.9. +- Gibson: Could we use master for that? +- Jeremiah: Maybe, I’m not sure whether people actually use master. +- James: Looks like we could have some pushback on not landing the 5.9 PR + without the ABI patch. +- Myles: The ABI patch for 5.8 never landed on master. +- Gibson: I’ll make an issue for this. +- Myles: Do master and 8 have the same module version right now? +- James: No, 8.x is 57 and master is 55. +- Myles: okay, then I’m okay with 5.9 landing on master as long as it bumps the + module version to 56, or bump to 57 if it has the API patch. +- James: we need to be very clear about what V8 changes to backport from master + to 8.x. +- Jeremiah: I think landing with the ABI patch would still be preferrable + though.