-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 133
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 22 Jan 2025
Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>
- Loading branch information
Showing
1 changed file
with
142 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 +1,142 @@ | ||
| # Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2025-01-22 | ||
|
|
||
| ## Links | ||
|
|
||
| * **Recording**: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpjcRGnCHII> | ||
| * **GitHub Issue**: <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1676> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Present | ||
|
|
||
| * Antoine du Hamel @aduh95 (voting member) | ||
| * Ruben Bridgewater @BridgeAR (voting member) | ||
| * James Snell @jasnell (voting member) | ||
| * Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (voting member) | ||
| * Chengzhong Wu @legendecas (voting member) | ||
| * Marco Ippolito @marco-ippolito (voting member) | ||
| * Matteo Collina @mcollina (voting member) | ||
| * Michael Dawson @mhdawson (voting member) | ||
| * Richard Lau @richardlau (voting member) | ||
| * Robert Nagy @ronag (voting member) | ||
| * Ruy Adorno @ruyadorno (voting member) | ||
| * Paolo Insogna @ShogunPanda (voting member) | ||
| * Joe Sepi @joesepi (Guest - Node.js CPC rep) | ||
| * Joshua M. Clulow (Guest: illumos/SmartOS platform) | ||
| * Brie (Guest: illumos/SmartOS platform) | ||
|
|
||
| ## Agenda | ||
|
|
||
| ### Announcements | ||
|
|
||
| * Matteo: Organization for collaborator summit is under way, please submit session if you would like to have one, and if you need travel funding please submit request as well. | ||
| * Richard: Security releases this week, please upgrade accordingly | ||
|
|
||
| ### Reminders | ||
|
|
||
| * Remember to nominate people for the [contributor spotlight](https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/reconizing-contributors.md#bi-monthly-contributor-spotlight) | ||
|
|
||
| ### CPC and Board Meeting Updates | ||
|
|
||
| *Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting | ||
|
|
||
| * CPC updates | ||
| * Joe: board meeting this week. So if anything to be brought up let Joe or Matteo know | ||
| * Matteo, also mentioned to reach out to him if there is anything to be brought to the board | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/node | ||
|
|
||
| * doc: change smartos support type to experimental [#56220](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/56220) | ||
| * Matteo, @anonrig had proposed lowering to experimental, and possibly removing | ||
| from the regular CI runs | ||
| * Marco, some issues for the 20.x staging, have not started CI yet, failing before on SmartOs | ||
| * James, appreciate the increased effort, key issue has been issues blocking progress on | ||
| PRs, which is what Yagiz experienced, have experienced those as well. As we make | ||
| on improving support for the machines would be good to have agreement on what | ||
| we do to move forward. | ||
| * Brie if something has been known to be flaky, then ok with skipping. But if it was known | ||
| to be stable then I would like to have that be investigated. | ||
| * Joshua, tests which are flaky should be marked as flaky | ||
| * Matteo: in the past, what has been done for certain platforms, put in test, skip the test | ||
| * Michael: and platform teams have been, ok based on understanding and can prioritize | ||
| when to fix that. | ||
| * Michael: To James point, as work is done to improve, can we set a time after an | ||
| at mention to the smartOS team, its ok to skip after 5 days. | ||
| * Joshua that would be good for us | ||
| * James sounds good for us as well | ||
| * James every flaky test should have a test. | ||
| * Michael: in terms of releases, will continue to ping team and discuss in the release issue | ||
| * Joshua, was hoping to assign issue to people and label them, but don’t seem to be | ||
| able to do that. | ||
| * general consensus, leave it as it is for now, and see how progress goes in terms | ||
| of improving responsiveness. | ||
| * James will talk to Yagiz to update and ask if he would be ok in removing from agenda for | ||
| now. To be added back if progress is not made | ||
| * Matteo, some work to be done with respect to reliability CI repo. That documents the | ||
| CI failures - <https://github.com/nodejs/reliability/blob/main/reports/2025-01-22.md> | ||
| * reliability report is a good place to look and chase down failures | ||
| * skipping it ok, particularly if platform team is comfortable skipping. | ||
|
|
||
| * test: improve zlib tests [#55716](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55716) | ||
| * two topics | ||
| * migrate to use test runner | ||
| * changing test structure | ||
| * discussing both together is making the discussion harder to progress | ||
| * This one in particular is about whether to use test runner as much as possible | ||
| * PR - <https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/56027> - to set policy | ||
| * Chengzhong, seems like we don’t have consensus in the PR yet | ||
| * James, not going to engage in the conversation, to frustrating, conversation for me is not | ||
| healthy | ||
| * problem is that we have new contributors, they open PRs and get discouraged because | ||
| they are blocked without interesting | ||
| * Joyee, 2 kinds of PRs, one not related to style, others which change to style of their liking, | ||
| those are more debatable, and more risky. | ||
| * Michael, fundamental issue is that we don’t have consensus on moving all tests to test | ||
| running. Agree with Joyee that we should not recommend new collaborators to make | ||
| stylistic changes unless it is agreed/documented that the project wants to move in | ||
| that direction. | ||
| * Joyee, node-test is unrelated, but good to have guidelines in terms of what we should | ||
| add to the tests. Still not convinced stylistic changes are good for backports | ||
| * Marco, from the point of view of a Releaser, migrating tests for the sake of migrations will | ||
| cause a lot of work/headaches, migrating for for the sake of migrating, | ||
| * Ronag, don’t think we are addressing the key issue, more documented should be easier, but | ||
| the rest introduce the change people are concerned about | ||
| * Matteo: personally there is will from 3rd party runtimes to say they are Node.js compatible | ||
| by running the tests. Test suite was not built with that in mind and creating a certification | ||
| program for other runtimes is a lot of effort and that only really matters for those who | ||
| develop other runtimes. Not sure how to solve, except to create separate certification | ||
| Suite. Not convinced the current test suite is the starting point for that. | ||
| * James, work is not necessarily using node-test, but figuring out how to move in that | ||
| direction. | ||
| * Joyee, node-test encourages grouping files, which may not be great for James use case. | ||
| * Michael for the original issue what we need is more specific direction/documentation. For example, | ||
| one option that allows forward progess but not adding too much work for the project would be | ||
| to only accept stylistic changes along with other changes to tests fix problems with the | ||
| test, reduce flakiness etc. That might be too slow to achieve James' goals though. What we really | ||
| need is to agree on direction and document it, so that we avoid people being surprised\ | ||
| when they propose stylistic only changes. | ||
| * Ronald, thinkig about ideas that might work, how about a new set of tests, and project runs both? | ||
| * James, will likely develop other test suite. | ||
| * Joyee, that sounds like what I suggested a while ago. We don’t ask other runtimes | ||
| so that they can run their tests on Node.js | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/TSC | ||
|
|
||
| * Clarify the Charter so that contractors are explicitly counted as affiliated [#1650](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/pull/1650) | ||
| * CPC approved, Matteo will land after meeting | ||
|
|
||
| * doc: add funding goals [#1678](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/pull/1678) | ||
| * Michael, TSC members please take a look and comment/approve | ||
|
|
||
| * Let's talk about the CI situation [#1614](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1614) | ||
| * skipped this week as we ran out of time | ||
|
|
||
| * Status of smartOS support and what future holds [#1663](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1663) | ||
| * Covered in discussion above | ||
|
|
||
| ## Strategic Initiatives | ||
| * skipped this week as we ran out of time. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Upcoming Meetings | ||
|
|
||
| * **Node.js Project Calendar**: <https://nodejs.org/calendar> | ||
|
|
||
| Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar. |