►
Description
A
C
E
D
G
K
N
Async
rep,
considering
changing
the
name,
mainly
because
a
sink
ref
is
just
a
leak
of
what
the
class
name
is,
but
isn't
super
descriptive
about
what
it
does
for
a
scientific.
Is
this
as
I
put
a
Twitter
poll
on,
and
people
liked,
async
Oaks,
so
gonna
Mull
it
over
happy
or
any
discussion
or
suggestions,
but
yeah
the
name
will
be
going
from
peace
and
grab.
Next
is
rich
yeah.
A
K
A
J
D
A
Right
and
Brian
White
exploring
d
optimizations
and
seek
out
new
optimizations
and
the
usual
PR
and
issue
stuff.
Ok,
so
now
me
and
I'm
the
last
person
right
and
does
anybody
else
need
to
go
besides
me
great,
so
I
there's
been
a
lot
of
see.
I
took
a
nosedive
this
week
and
mostly
been
been
been
prodding
others
to
to
stuff
about
it.
But
I've
done
a
little
bit
here
and
there
there
were
two
separate
things,
one
of
which
is
resolved.
Thank
you
James
and
others,
and
another
is
ongoing,
but
should
be
fixed
soon.
A
I
think
it
sounds
like
anyway
helped
a
bunch
of
handful
of
first-time
contributors
get
their
first
commit
sin,
two
of
them
so
far
anyway,
some
documentation
changes
came
out
of
that
there
was
some
confusing
stuff
that,
like
we
never
look
at,
but
new
people
do.
That
was
useful
and
lots
of
small
PRS
in
factoring
tests
and
stuff,
but
nothing
huge
to
report.
Okay,
let's
let's,
let's,
let's
move
on
I
think
the
next
thing
we
usually
do
is
review
the
previous
meeting.
A
I
A
H
A
G
A
/
kao,
ok,
the
staging
branch
for
stable
release.
Dreams
seems
to
still
be
controversial.
I
think
it's
on
this
week's
agenda
to
yes,
it
is
and
the
seeking
legal
advice,
kind
of
standing
thing
we
might
get
to
that
at
the
end
or
not
cool
anything.
We
need
to
talk
about
from
the
previous
meeting
before
we
plow
ahead
into
this
week's
agenda.
D
D
O
A
General,
perhaps
we
have,
we
have
a
process
doc
that
actually
in
actually
specifies
that
we
that
when
we
take
a
vote,
we
first
asked
people
to
indicate
a
scent
and
then
ask
people
to
indicate
descent.
But
yeah
in
this
case,
probably
just
asking
for
dissent,
is
probably
sufficient,
speaking
of
which
is
there
any.
Would
anybody
all
who
all
who
oppose
please
say?
Nay,.
A
I
think
the
record
can
show
that
the
miles
was
unanimously
brought
on
board
and
now
is
now
is
probably
the
point
where
we
usually
congratulate
the
new
member,
but
he's
not
here
I
guess
for
next
steps.
Josh
I
guess
maybe
just
note
that
rod
is
probably
going
to
send
miles
an
email
and
do
whatever
onboarding
stuff
rod
does
when
these
things
happen
said
fair
to
say,
rod.
A
B
B
B
G
N
Okay,
so
it's
two
things:
one
goes:
it'll
just
click
the
code.
If
we're
able
to
move
to
be
able
to
extend
directly
off
of
you
and
rate,
whereas
right
now,
it's
a
whole
bunch
of
messed
up
in
terms
of
how
that's
set
up
right
and
the
other
one
is
we've
had
community
members
asked
for
the
ability
to
extend
the
buffer.
If
you
want
use
cases,
you
can
go
to
them,
I'm
relaying
their
open
issues
about
it.
It
is
a
requested
feature.
B
B
Be
this
it
is,
I
posted
a
proof-of-concept
implementation
there.
You
might
want
to
take
a
look
at
that.
Okay,
I
think
everything
is
pretty
much
going
to
be
right.
You
probably
have
to
look
at
how
to
improve
performance,
because
that's
probably
going
to
need
to
be
handled
differently,
but
yeah.
It
is
possible.
G
A
N
I
missed
something
so
that
about
the
being
able
to
extend
from
you
at
in
array
only
thing,
the
only
thing
that
requires
that's
needed
is
to
enforce
the
use
of
new
all
the
additional
arguments,
and
everything
can
still
be
added
afterwards.
We
can
still
extend
directly
from
you
and
a
droid
all
right.
Okay,.
G
G
N
A
So
hard
deprecation
James
is
writing
a
has
a
proposed
deprecation
policy
that
you
can
look
at
actually,
but
hard.
Deprecated
means
that
it
will
so
soft
deprecated
would
be
documentation
only
hard
deprecated
is
it
will
print
a
warning
and
if
you
send
it
the
command
line
flag
to
treat
deprecation
warnings
as
errors,
it
will
throw.
Is
that
right,
James
or
Jeremiah
or
somebody
we.
A
G
A
G
B
N
G
A
F
E
E
F
D
F
F
D
E
F
A
Okay,
unless
there's
more
to
talk
about,
I
guess
I
would
say
you
know
post
it
post
comments
in
the
github
issue.
If
you
have
concerns
since
of
this
semper
major,
there
need
to
be
two
LG
TMS
from
ctc
and
there's
only
one
so
far,
so
so
there's
that
as
well
armed
I
mean,
I
don't
know,
do
actually
I
guess
it's
unclear
to
me:
do
we
want
I
mean?
K
A
Okay,
unless
there's
any
objection,
let's
go
ahead
and
remove
the
CTC
agenda
label
from
that
and
let's
try
to
get
another.
You
know
if
anybody
on
the
CTC
would
would
really
like
to
see
this
land.
Please
review
it
because
it
needs
at
least
two
to
ctc
members
to
give
it
the
thumbs
up
before
it
can
go
in.
A
Josh
I
just
said
that
we
should
remove
the
CTC
agenda
from
the
from
the
item
and
that
it
does
need
another
CTC
member
to
approve
it
before
it
can
land
because
it
semper
major
but
other
than
that.
If
anybody
wakes
up
in
the
middle
of
the
night
tonight
and
has
an
objection,
they
should
go
on
the
github
issue
and
lodge
that
objection.
Otherwise
this
is
just
you
know
great.
A
E
A
A
Okay,
let's,
unless
there
are
objections,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
item,
which
is
a
also
FS
module-
undecayed
exists
inc.
This
is
ok.
I
use
access
instead
of
stat
for
performance.
I
have
to
admit
that
I
had
not
even
looked
at
this,
so
who's
going
to
set
the
stage
for
this.
Let's
see
looks
like
Jeremih
added
it
to
the
agenda.
Can
you
do
this
jeremiah.
D
Did
some
list
of
the
pins
from
been
here
the
last
time
how
to
penny's
about
this
someone?
Actually
this
is
this
entire
exists.
Sync
exists
thing
from
FS
again,
someone
actually
as
a
use,
that's
from
gits
so
get
eyes.
Dot
get
/
rebase
dash,
apply
/
rebasing
as
a
file
that
has
no
bites
in
it
just
exists
if
you're
in
the
middle
of
a
rebase.
So
that
would
be
a
legitimate
use
for
this,
because
you
never
are
going
to
try
and
access
the
file
except
to
see
if
it
exists
and.
D
A
K
A
K
A
It
would
it
be
sensible
to
table
this
discussion
till
next
week,
just
to
give
people
an
opportunity
to
read
what
new
or
not
new
information
is
there
and
duly
consider
it
and
have
the
discussion
on
github
and
if
we
don't
come
to
a
consensus
or
a
resolution,
there
will
we'll
discuss
this
at
the
meeting
next
week.
Is
that
does
that
seem
like
a
unreasonable
approach?
I
was.
A
D
D
A
A
A
K
So
if
I
recall
correctly,
this
is
simply
about
the
marketing
team
and
also
the
website
team
wanting
access
to
analytics
for
how
the
doctor
use
and
the
objections
to
doing
this
will
regard
to
user
privacy.
I
think
that
was
the
primary
hold
up
on
not
getting
it
done
with
some.
The
fact
that
you
have
to
opt
out
of
that
and
simply.
K
N
D
D
K
A
K
So
I,
my
only
concern
here
is
moving
forward
here
without
been
having
a
voice
in
a
vote
here,
because
he
was
the
that
he
was
the
main
hold
out
aside
from
chaco.
He
was
the
main
hold
out
for
this.
He
had
some
strong
privacy
objections
so
I
from
what
I
understand
from
this
meeting.
We
are
generally
in
favor
of
this.
We
don't
see
big
problems
with
actually,
but.
F
Well,
I
would
like
to
raise
some
concerns
about
the
privacy
as
well,
so
I
can't
really
enjoy
the
idea
of
being
tracked
so
considering
that
other
parts
of
the
website
do
tracking,
it
may
be
more
acceptable
to
me,
but
anyway
it
doesn't
seems
to
be
the
boot.
Also,
it's
I
think
the
questions
I'm
bonner
question
is
what
people
will
have
access
to
these
statistics.
F
K
K
A
A
We
agree
to
go
back
to
github
and
ask
these
questions
and
have
these
conversations
and
raise
these
objections
would
probably
won't
reach
consensus
on
this,
but
will
try
in
the
next
week
and
if
we
don't
we'll
discuss
it,
you
know
as
the
second
or
third
item
next
week,
and
you
know
hopefully
either
reach
consensus
or
at
least
agree
to
have
a
vote
and
just
get
resolution
one
way
or
the
other
is
that.
Does
anybody
object
to
ending
the
conversation
today
that
way.
K
A
While
josh
is
typing
all
of
that
I'm
going
to
so,
the
next
up
is
introducing
a
staging
branch
for
stable
release,
dreams,
Jeremiah
I
believe,
is
the
main
opponent
or
the
main
person
who
has
concerns.
I
should
say
about
this,
and
I
believe
that
the
person
who
most
is
interested
in
it
is
probably
miles
so
we
may
not
get
very
far
today,
but
let's
see
what
we
can
do,
it
looks
like
the
last
person
added
to
the
agenda
was
in
fact
miles
two
weeks
ago.
A
Well,
will
you
can,
if
you
want
to
voice
that
opinion
too,
since
miles
added
the
label?
If
you
want
to
discuss
that
with
him,
that
would
probably
be
the
wind
perceived
there,
but
let's,
let's
definitely
not
talk
about
it
today
we
certainly
don't
need.
This
doesn't
require
urgent
action
or
anything
seeking
legal
advice
on
license
and
copyright
blocks
in
code.
I
think
this
is
a
rod
thing.
B
A
A
I
It's
I
I
added
that
the
two
things
I
want
to
get
input
on
were
there's
me
and
there's
no
DPS
for
the
a
bi-stable
module.
The
document
you
know
has
information
about
what
we're
planning
to
do
the
current
view
of
the
API.
It's
definitely
not
going
to
be
the
final
version
of
the
API
or
anything
like
that,
but
having
it
open
as
a
PR
or
makes
it
more
difficult
to
to
collaborate
on
you
know
having
other
people
issue,
pull
request
to
change
it
and
stuff,
like
that,
so
I'm.
I
I
The
second
issue
was:
we've
been
making
progress
on
proof-of-concept
code,
but
that's
been
in
a
Ian's
private
for
not
private
for
it,
but
his
Fork
of
node
and
know
that
ons
and
I'd
like
to
get
it
somewhere.
That's
maybe
a
little
bit
more
visible.
Some
initial
ideas
are
like
it
could
be
like
a
node,
a
B
dash
ABI
like
we
have
no
private
or
a
branch
on
the
made
known
node.
Repo
I,
think
concerns
about
the
branch
ID
in
the
past.
I
J
D
So
just
a
thought,
like
we
I,
think
James
recently
made
like
an
HCP
repo.
Maybe
we
should
just
like
consolidate
that
and
this
and
everything
else
it's
like
really
experimental
like
that,
but
it
still
needs
like
heavy
public
coverage,
and
I
know'd
I
don't
know
future
experimentation
or
what
something
like
that
repo
to
do
any
wise
like
you
could
do
it
from
the
main
repo.
But
if
people
have
concerns
about
that,
maybe
we
should
just
have
a
I
secondary
one
for
that
right.
J
D
I
F
So
my
concern
is
the
management
of
the
branches,
so
I
don't
want
to
establish
the
brook
types
of
having
their
branches
in
Maine,
repo
for
experimental
work
and
there's.
A
reason
for
this
is
that
the
one
time
ago
we
had
this
analogous
and
then
we
had
a
problem
of
cleaning
up
stings
after
they
were
merged,
because
some
people
who
were
working
on
some
features
we're
gonna,
want
no
longer
able
to
participate
in
them.
So
we
know
each
coach,
this
review
it
or
not,
yeah
so
having
it
in
a
super.
I
J
J
A
I
I'm,
just
thinking
the
only
the
only
remaining
issue,
which
maybe
isn't
the
big
objection
is
that
for
us
we
have
approval
to
contribute
to
things
under
nodejs.
We'll
have
to
get
new
approval
to
contribute
to
stuff
outside
of
that.
But
that's,
maybe
not
a
good
enough
reason
to
do
something
different.
So.
A
I
I
I
I
D
K
If
anyone
concerned
about
size
or
anything
here,
then
you
just
have
to
add
it
as
a
remote
to
your
existing
repo.
It's
not
a
big
deal,
so
I
think
for
this
kind
of
thing,
since
we're
going
around
in
circles
here,
the
best
option
is
to
assert
what
you
would
like
to
do.
Ask
for
objections.
If
there's
no
objections,
then
go
and
do
it?
Ok,.
I
A
A
D
A
Care
of
Steven
all
right.
Well,
if
there
are
no
questions,
then,
if,
unless
we
haven't
waited
sufficiently
long,
I
think
it's
maybe
time
to
turn
off
the
streaming,
have
the
private
part
of
the
meeting,
and
then
you
know
so
thanks
everybody,
and
thanks
for
you,
know,
yeah.
Thank
you
and
see
you
next
week.