►
Description
A
Welcome
to
the
node
foundation,
CTC
meeting
the
11th
to
generate
2017
as
usual,
we're
going
to
start
with
our
stand
up
then
we'll
have
a
review
of
the
past
meeting
and
then
we'll
delve
into
the
agenda
for
today.
So
starting
with
the
stand
up,
first
up
is
I'm.
Just
looking
for
the
first
person
in
tier,
it
was
be
Anna
because
he
Bradley
your
first.
C
Sure
so
we
got
some
final
confirmations
about
the
opinion
of
things
on
ES
modules
that
we'd
been
waiting
for
pretty
much
since
sep
tember,
so
we're
going
to
discuss
that
this
meeting.
That's
why
I'm
here.
D
Think
it's
me
okay,
so
I
did
a
new
release
of
libel,
UV
open
the
4
plus
2
node
for
that
Evans
mother
for
press
and
then
mostly
just
read
other
people's
it
reach
people
request.
Next
is
probably
oven.
E
B
Hey
so
I
rebased
my
promises
when
they
have
unhandled
rejections,
throw
errors
on
GC
or
program
exit,
pull
request.
I,
don't
think
many
people
have
seen
that
the
GC
handlers
no
longer
appear
to
work.
Perhaps
that
is
a
Fault
in
how
the
new
sort
of
weak
handler
API
that
I
had
to
switch
to
is
being
used
so
I'm
waiting
for
a
response
from
v8
people
or
not,
and
then
I've
been
talking
a
little
bit
with
Bradley
about
modules
and
that's
kind
of
about
it.
James
is
next.
F
G
A
Scheduled
the
benchmarking
work
with
me,
which
is
happening
this
thursday.
I
did
some
work
too
figuring
our
Jenkins
jobs,
so
that
the
CIT
GM
team
can
launch
and
modify
their
own
jobs
likely
to
do
something
similar
for
the
post-mortem
workers.
Well,
I'm
going
work
with
the
a
bi-stable
module.
Api
effort
participate
in
a
few
games.
I
feel
TF
meeting
right
chase
down
a
few
ax
issues
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
them
investigated
and
then
just
general
issue
review
comment
and
landing.
Next
is
Brian
White.
H
I
F
Guess,
let's
see
we're
just
mainly
getting
ready
to
branch
for
v8
5.7,
which
has
been
mainly
hassle
because
of
getting
some
web
assembly
stuff
taken
care
of,
but
I
believe
other.
Let
me
quickly
confirm
that
promise
hooks
are
also
in
57
and
I.
Don't
have
the
sheet
in
front
of
me
who's
up
next
rubber.
A
J
See
work
on
the
only
things
of
note
are
we're
here
on
a
sink
hooks
tests
with
torsten
and
hammering
those
out
and
then
catching
up
on
some
miscellaneous
issues
and
doing
some
PR
reviews
rich.
K
Hi
all
the
usual
stuff
test
updates
dock
updates,
but
all
pretty
minor
things
fixing
a
flaky
tests
here.
They're
helping
some
people
get
their
first
contribution
happening
tools,
update
doing
a
a
mini
code
and
learn
I
guess
you
could
say
tonight
in
San
Francisco.
If
anybody
listening
is
interested
and
usual
PR
and
issue
review,
hey
I,
think
that's
everybody.
Let's
get
to
the
agenda!
Yay!
Okay,.
A
So
next
on
our
thing
is
just
a
quick
review
of
last
week
meeting.
So
we
talked
about
landing
NPM
for
into
node,
7
I
think
the
outcome
was,
it
was
going
to
go
into
master,
and
then
there
was
general
agreement
to
go
back
to
seven
console.log
and
util
format
should
support
the
percent.
I
integer
I
think
there
was
some
discussion,
but
that
ended
up
going
back
to
being
referred
back
into
the
PR
for
further
discussion.
A
Process
add
code
to
warnings,
assign
hosted
applications.
I
think
that
110
116
was
most
of
it,
mostly
heads
up
to
ask
for
people
to
go
and
take
a
look:
doc,
deprecated
old,
debug
protocol,
103
20.
That
was
part
of
the
discussion
on
the
deprecating,
the
old
debug
protocol
and
then
finally,
174
update
the
copyright
update
the
copyright
I.
Think
again,
there
was
some
more
more
discussion,
but
really
it's
back
to
get
up
to
close
on
on
that
I
think
right
now
we're
basically
waiting
for
feedback
from
the
lawyers
in
terms
of
water,
sir.
A
E
B
E
A
A
F
A
So,
if
any,
unless
anybody
disagrees,
I
think
the
the
resolution
on
that
one
should
just
be
to
remove
the
CTC
agenda
for
now,
which
I've
just
done.
Ok.
Moving
on
to
the
next
one,
timers
cleanup
extraneous
property
on
immediate
I.
Think
last
week
we
closed
with
a
suggestion
that
there
be
a
vote
in
the
issue
like
just
opening
that
up
to
see
if
that's
been
happening,
I
know
that
I
think
I'm
pretty
sure
it
has
that
I'm
just
seemed
to
remembers
commenting
myself
there.
A
Oh
I,
don't
know
in
terms
of
closing
out
on
this.
I
do
see
there's
a
number
of
vote.
Do
we
want
to
see
where
we
stand
and
see
if
we
can
close
it
it
with
the
people?
Anybody
who
hasn't
voted
already
here
or
do
we
want
to
just
ask
people
we're
here
to
go
back
and
comment
in
the
issue
and
close
it
is
there.
A
K
A
K
A
F
I've
gotten
some
review,
it's
December
major,
so
I
need
sign-off
from
ctc,
so
it's
got
some
review
some
of
the
conversations
kind
of
gone
off
in
the
reason
on
one
of
the
boarding
api
causing
a
little
bit
of
noise
in
the
end
thread,
if
you'd
a
clear
decision.
Whether
this
is
something
we
want
to
do
or
not,
and
I
need
CTC
members
to
give
it
a
sign
up.
So
I
can
afford.
Okay.
A
F
The
part
of
the
pr
is
a
new
documentation
page,
which
lists
all
the
deprecation
most.
You
can
probably
9010
of
the
messages
in
there
just
come
directly
from
the
from
the
air.
Vlogs
I
fully
recognize
that
some
that
that
documentation
can
be
improved,
but
the
intention
is
to
do
that
in
subsequent
pr's
and
not
to
rabbit
hole
too
much
on
this
PR
on
specific
wording
of
individuals,
deprecation
messages.
F
I,
we
really
the
question
last
week,
if
anybody
had
any
objections
to
this
idea.
As
I
said
it
again,
anybody
looking
at
this
or
considering
this,
have
you
know
any
thoughts
that
yet
we
should
not
do
this.
We
should
not
go
to
throw.
A
A
F
You
know
796
floor
is
an
old
PR
that
I
recently
updated
and
we
haven't
had
a
very
clear
deprecation
policy
documented.
This
is
an
attempt
to
get
that
documented
at
this
point.
There's
nothing.
We
need
to
decide
here
on
this
call
it's
just
when
you
folks
to
look
at
it,
weigh
in
and
come
you
know,
so
we
can
iterate
and
get
a
policy
to
burrow
comfortable
with
and
then
get
some
signups
on.
So
I'm
not
a
huge
rush
to
get
this
done,
but
it
is
something
you
need
to
get
done.
Yeah.
A
F
K
A
F
A
F
Need
to
make
that
everyone
is
revealing
it.
So
if
it,
if
there's
anyone
who
feels
this
is
controversial,
then
I
would
prefer
to
call
for
a
boat.
But
if
everyone
just
looks
at
this,
not
okay
or
if
we
can
iterate
on
it
to
the
point
where
it's
something
that
everyone's
comfortable
with
and
we
can
proceed
without
a
vote.
Yeah.
F
Yeah-
and
there
are
some
things
in
here
that
are
different
from
arc
from
the
way
we've
done
our
policy
in
the
past.
For
example,
this
policy
allows
documentation
only
deprecation
to
landis
number
minor.
We've
always
treated
those
in
the
past
december
major
because
a
deprecation,
but
has
always
been
a
question
about
whether
that's
necessary
and
we
bought
in
and
we've
had
a
number
of
discussions
about
whether
you
know
taking
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
F
J
F
Introduced
specific
concept
of
end-of-life
code,
so
not
just
I,
you
know
hard,
you
know
a
runtime
doc
defecation,
but
code,
that
is,
it
can
be
identified
as
okay.
This
can
be
removed
now,
and
we've
had
some
instances
of
that,
like
the
string,
interface
or
FS
urge
and
I'm
for
one
of
the
fs
methods
just
reasonably
got
removed.
F
K
J
F
A
F
I
would
leave
it
on
the
agenda.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it
remains
as
long
as
we
get
it
close.
A
F
I
said
a
email
to
Michael
and
rod
formally
requesting
that
they
ask
the
legal
committee.
The
foundation
to
review
I
have
not
received
a
response
from
that.
I
have
asked
rod
to
clarify
and
to
verify
whether
or
not
there's
been
any
activity
and
I
will
continue
to
follow
up.
There
has
been
some
feedback
on
the
updated
copyright
specific,
no
just
regards
to
some
specific
wording.
That
may
mean
longer
actually
have
any
meaning,
and
we
can
tweak
that
a
little
bit.
F
10
5
99.
If
I
can
get
everyone,
you
know.
F
B
F
Can't
even
land
the
10
155,
the
restoring
the
original
copyright
I'm
attribution
without
legal
committee
review
either
they're
telling
us
that
we
have
to
do
it,
but
we
need
their
okay
to
verify
that
what
we
want
to
propose
yours
is
correct,
because
I
don't
want
to
make
the
situation
worse,
so
we're
kind
of
in
a
holding
pattern
right
now.
Okay,.
A
So
basically
10
5,
9,
9
and
10
155,
which
are
both
here
on
the
agenda
we
need.
We
need
them
to
get
back
to
us
and
film,
only
1,
B,
1,
B
sec
agenda
and
next
week's
be
where
we
stand.
Yep,
okay
and
I.
Guess
174,
I
think,
is
updating
the
copyright
as
well
and
just
double
check,
though
I
think
so.
Those
are
ideals,
there's
anything
different
to
discuss
on
that
front.
Yeah.
A
B
Yeah,
so
this
is
my
issue:
it's
been
a
long
time
since
we
had
added
anyone
with
new
release,
poems
so
I
think
it
was
a
figure
we
might
as
well
grow
that
group
a
little
bit
at
least
and
just
for
context.
These
people
don't
need
to
be
ctc
members.
That's
always
been
the
case
so
far
and
last
week,
for
a
lot
of
a
reason
were
to
change
our
mind
on
that
I
debt.
B
We
would
and
I
think
two
people
have
seemingly
put
up
their
hands:
Gibson,
IBM
and
italia
cassis,
who
helped
he
hasn't,
put
up
his
hand
in
the
thread,
but
he
helped
make
the
this
seven
point.
Three
point:
Oh
release
proposal,
I
think
and
I
talked
to
him
a
little
bit
about
that.
So
we
can
contact
him
in
that
thread,
but
we
will
need
a
CTC
sign
off
for
either
those
people
to
get
release
permissions.
F
I
B
Yeah,
I
agree
that
that
it's.
K
B
Think
someone
else
helping
helping
them
with
our
first
release
is
pretty
much
required
because
they're
still
armed
a
number
of
things
that
can
go
wrong
when
you
do
a
release
regarding
anything
that
might
wrote,
go
wrong
with
promotion
or
keys
or
anything.
It's
definitely
important
to
have
someone
there
rich.
B
A
F
B
Oh,
you
mean
shadowing
and
release
first,
okay,
yeah
I
think
we
yeah.
We
could
do
that.
So
we
can
go
back
to
the
thread
and
REE.
Ask
those
people
and
go
from
there.
I
think.
We
probably
also
need
to
then
contact
the
build
working
group,
because
that
has
to
do
with
key
things
and
I
think
they
are
generally
a
little
bit
more
in
tune
with
how
all
that
works
and
yeah.
So.
A
A
K
I'm,
treating
this
more
like
informational,
like
Jeremiah's
coming
to
us
and
saying
you
know,
hey
I
got
these
two
people
who
want
to
be.
You
know
who
want
to
do
this.
Stop
me
if
you
want
to
stop
me,
but
otherwise
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
you
know
arrange
for
them
to
be
able
to
do
this
stuff
and
that
I'm
fine
with
all
that.
I
think
I
think.
K
A
K
A
A
B
Is
there
any
reason
we
wouldn't
just
put
votes
in
the
issue
rather
than
putting
it
in
sidebar?
You.
A
A
F
A
A
K
B
J
F
This
actually
raises
another
point
and
I
just
want
a
quick
question
connecting
to
work
on
it
and
we
can
Rick
and
discuss
it
later.
But
there
has
the
other
questions
recently
about
what
constitutes
an
acceptable
boat
or
not
whether
you
know,
because
because
I
did
a
minus
zero
and
then
I
explain
what
that
meant,
would
it
be
beneficial
to
actually
have
a
clear
description
of
how
both
happen
in
what
counts
like
right,
that
I
I
don't.
K
F
Maybe
I
wasn't
going
to
say
anything
else,
but
you
know
with
with
her
first
question
about
what
those
thumbs
up
counts
right.
It
might
might
be
good
just
to
get
a
little
clarification
a
little
bit
of
documentation
around
it.
I'll
think
about
it
anyway,
and
we
want
to
derail
the
conversation
so
and
continue.
Okay,.
A
C
C
So
I'm,
basically
here
because
we've
had
the
results,
come
in
mostly
for
what
the
bm's
canna
cannot
do
for
us,
at
least
on
v8
side.
We
had
some
talks,
awhile
agera
with
chakra
as
well,
and
I
presume
there
and
changed
so
I
haven't
really
investigated
that
and
James
and
I
talked
with
the
eight
on
Monday,
and
so
we
have
some
talking
points
to
discuss
regarding
things
that
need
to
change
in
002,
which
is
the
node
draft
that
was
accepted
for
implementing
PS
modules.
C
So
the
big
one
is
the
champions
for
es
modules
and
VA,
have
misgivings
about
property
delegation
on
variable
access
or
imported
variables.
So
something
like
import
read
file
from
FS.
If
we
have
property
delegation
which
is
currently
what
Babel
does
it
basically
does
modulo
exports
and
takes
a
property
off
that
whenever
you
use
an
imported
variable.
C
C
That
would
include
even
es
module,
tes
module
variable
access,
so
any
important
variable
would
suddenly
basically
be
wrapped
up
with
the
side
effect
guards,
so
they
can't
be
in
mind
or
anything
like
that.
C
C
C
So
basically,
what
this
is
saying
is
named
property
imports
from
comedy
is
pretty
much
are
not
in
the
cards,
so
this
means
we
won't
have
something
that
looks
like
babel
as
it
exists
in
Babel,
six,
newer
implementations,
including
a
p.o
for
babel
and
the
release
candidate
for
web
pack.
2
don't
do
named
imports
from
common
jayus
modules,
so
they
ended
up
doing
this
because
it
was
the
safe
route,
even
if
they
didn't
get
named
imports.
C
C
H
F
That
I
ever
I
mean
that's
it
hopefully
a
point
in
time.
Didn't
you
know,
I
kind
of
call
that
we
had
the
other
day
with
some
of
the
vm
focuses.
They
recognized
that
the
ability
to
do
named
imports
from
a
common
Jas
is
is
a
reasonable
goal
and
they'd
like
to
try
to
figure
out
a
way
of
getting
there,
but
with
the
current
situation
at
the
current
spec,
the
current
implementation
constraints,
it's
just
not
going
to
be
feasible
right
now
do
named
named
imports
from
common
dais.
F
So
the
only
way
we'll
be
if
you
import
from
a
common
Jas,
the
only
way
to
access
that
will
be
through
the
default
exploit
that
you
know
so.
The
way
we're
discussing
on
a
call
the
other
day
was
that
that
would
be
phase
one
right
and
hopefully,
we'll
get
so
phase
2,
where
we
can
move
the
ball
forward
on
the
point
on
a
sink
versus
sink
loading,
there's
still
an
open
question
there
than
I
think
that
we're
still
going
to
have
to
have
some
conversations,
and
at
that
point
you
see
there
and
I'm
meeting
on.
F
But
everyone
seems
to
seems
to
agree
that,
while
the
file
I/o
that
actually
loads
the
bits
module
can
be,
it
will
be
a
thing
that
the
actual
evaluation
can
still
be
think.
So
even
for
things
like
the
import
function,
that
returns
a
promise,
the
evaluation
of
that
code
would
would
still
be
synchronous.
Well,.
C
F
It
just
comes
down
to
we're
going
to
need
more
discussion
about
whether
you
know
what
parts
have
to
be
a
sink
or
can
be
a
sink
which
parts
can
be
or
have
to
be,
st.
curd
or
whatever,
and
we
just
got
to
work
through
those
we're
getting
closer
to
resolution.
I
think,
and
it
is
unfortunate
that
things
like
the
named
imports
are
good.
Looking
like
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
those,
but
it's
I
think
it's
good
that
we're
getting
closer
to
a
resolution.
F
C
C
So
I'm
going
to
briefly
discuss
the
the
quick
high-level
summary
of
differences
between
async
loading
and
sync
loading
whenever
I'm
talking
about
something
async,
just
assume
I'm
talking
about
wrapping
it
in
a
promise.
Somehow,
whenever
I'm
talking
about
sync
expected
not
to
be
wrapped
in
anything,
it
just
acts
like
require
wood
or
how
you
would
expect
Babel
6
to
work.
C
C
C
This
base,
including
since
it's
wrapped
in
promises
and
everything,
could,
in
theory,
support
a
synchronization
mechanism
like
top-level
await
we're
doing
asynchronous
operations
during
load
time
is
possible
because
you
can't
parallel
loading
in
an
async
loader.
So,
even
if
you
are
doing
some
sort
of
asynchronous
operation,
other
stuff
can
be
going
on.
C
In
the
background,
the
way
these
loader
works,
it
works
in
the
current
equid,
262,
spec,
no
changes,
and
so
we're
not
talking
about
trying
to
land
any
new
implementation
feature
beyond
what
web
browsers
require
and
no
need
to
go
to
tc39
to
implement
them.
C
C
You
can
expect
require
esm
to
have
some
minor
changes
from
babble.
Six,
like
we
said
default
only
from
common
jayus
is
going
to
be
in
any
way
that
loads,
a
foe,
esm,
there's
also
some
changes
about
mutation,
because
babble
modules
don't
properly
implement
mutation
and
the
variables
within
babble
modules
are
not
always
live,
but
they
need
to
be
live
for
real
es
implementation
poof.
C
So,
but
in
order
to
get
this,
we
do
need
to
land
a
tc39,
spec
change,
which
is
basically
this
proposal,
which
we
got
two
after
the
sep
tember
meeting
that
introduces
lazm
late,
linking
which
basically
adds
a
dead
zone
for
us
to
use
right
now.
The
spec
doesn't
allow
there
to
be
a
dead
zone
during
the
linking
face.
C
A
F
Yep,
better
good
and
you're
undergoing
3239
meeting
and
a
couple
of
weeks
where
this
is
no
doubt
going
to
be
discussed
further.
It
would
be
great
if
anyone
has
any
concerns
or
anything
that,
but
you
feel
needs
to
be
discussed
at
that
meeting.
You
know
I
will
be
there
probably
Bradley
and
going
to
be.
There.
Meiosis
also
said
that
he
might,
he
might
show
up.
F
B
F
F
A
F
A
B
K
There's
a
CTC
meeting
in
a
week,
obviously-
and
it's
going
to
be
for
for
it
for
ctc
members-
is
gonna,
be
at
a
new
time.
It's
going
to
be
at
five
o'clock
UTC,
which
will
be
9
p.m.
pacific
time
in
the
united
states
in
canada
and
tsc
meeting
tomorrow.
At
the
same
time
as
this
meeting,
a
p.m.
UTC,
which
is
noon
on
in
San
Francisco
and
a
benchmarking
meeting
is
one
hour
before
that
tomorrow,
streams
meeting
is
an
hour
before
that
tomorrow,
and
the
HTTP
to
meeting
is
the
hour
before
that
tomorrow.