release

[calvinmetcalf]

we moved to put out a release at the last meeting, but we haven't actually done it yet. Do we have a procedure for this?

[rvagg]

what is the status of the code in here? does it track io.js? was it agreed to jump to 3.0.0? who should be responsible for releases? I have publish access and could hand it over to someone the WG selects if there is a procedure and plan in place.

[chrisdickinson]

It tracks io.js. It was agreed to jump to 3.0.0. Unsure who is responsible for releases.

[rvagg]

fine, I can take responsibility for now, I'll do a 3.0.0 with the current codebase now unless someone tells me otherwise

[rvagg]

also .. how's the browserify support? do all of the transforms get applied to make it es3-happy or are we ditching that?

[calvinmetcalf]

I don't see why we'd ditch that

[rvagg]

well if you reverse the flow of code then it would be ditched -- the support came via the transformations that were applied in the build script (like this one for Array#forEach(), is that still being used to transfer code from io.js to here?

[calvinmetcalf]

I didn't think we reversed the flow yet

[mhart]

@chrisdickinson when you say it "tracks io.js" what does that mean exactly? This codebase is currently behind where io.js is, for example – so I would've thought it would be better if a 3.0.0 release is up to date with where io.js is...?

Eg, #102 made it into io.js, but hasn't made it in here...

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the process for how the two are supposed to stay in sync.

[chrisdickinson]

@mhart There are build scripts that pull in the changes from io.js, but they are still run manually.

[mhart]

Ah cool, gotcha.

Well my two cents would be that I'd love that script to be run before the next release, so that we can use the new constructor hotness. But not too fussed.

[sonewman]

+1 on discussing this. We should iron out this process for the future.

[mhart]

Yo yo, what's the news on this?

[calvinmetcalf]

done