►
Description
A
A
B
Hi
yeah,
basically
just
the
usual
last
week,
took
a
look
at
PRS
and
reviewed
them.
Yeah
next
up
would
be
who's
here.
It's
not
Bradley
and.
D
Aside
from
miscellaneous
peers
and
issues,
I've
been
working
a
lot
on
the
nuge's
get
a
bot,
so
currently
it's
capable
of
attempting
black
ports
2
v
7,
which
is
of
course
technically
a
back
port
from
master
and
also
to
be
sorry,
yeah,
be
76
and
before
it
tries
to
do
those
on
the
staging
branches.
D
Currently
there's
an
odd
problem
that
sometimes
occur
that
occurs
that
I'm
still
working
to
track
down
on
as
well
as
getting
sort
of
how
it
works
a
little
bit
cleaned
up.
So
it's
not
quite
as
noisy.
That's
still
going
to
take
a
bit
currently
working
on
trying
to
get
tests
out
for
it,
which
is
pretty
difficult
because
it
tries
us
well
to
do
all
the
get
stuff
it
needs
to
spawn
like
eight
or
nine
child
processes
throughout
the
entire
thing.
D
E
I
have
been
mostly
working
on
own
old
stuff,
some
usual
reviewing
of
poor
request
issues.
Indeed,
some
continue
to
do
some
experiments
with
a
give
a
link,
t
so
sort
of
to
see
which
way
it
could
go
with
not
yet
score.
We
will
ever
decide
to
use
it,
and
meanwhile
I
was
thinking
about
the
stream
base
and
how
to
make
it
good
again.
E
F
G
G
The
collaboration
summit
so
I'm
hoping
to
wrap
some
of
that
up
this
week,
actually
been
the
past
week,
pretty
involved
in
some
internal
stuff
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
FYI
for
the
next
two
weeks,
I'm
going
to
be
pretty
much
offline,
so
I'll
probably
miss
the
next
couple
meetings.
Next
is
Michael
Dawson
right.
H
So
I've
been
working
a
bit
on
the
process
to
work
up
some
more
access
to
build
jobs.
Some
this
miscellaneous
benchmarking
work
group
work
planning
some
TRS
their
continued
to
work
with
the
team
on
a
bi-stable
module.
Api
landed
dps,
as
we
discussed
last
week,
misc
review
comments
and
lands
and,
as
Josh
mentioned
as
I
said,
I'm
gonna
actually
be
away
the
next
two
weeks
as
well,
so
we'll
miss
any
meetings
that
are
in
those
two
weeks
as
well.
I
Hey
I
finally
found
the
unmute
button,
so
yeah
I
have
just
been
following
up
with
all
the
stuff
from
the
board
meeting
at
node.
Interactive.
Don't
have
a
lot
of
kind
of
technical
updates.
Anything.
J
A
So
likewise,
I'm
a
bit
snowed
under
with
some
work
stuff,
but
highlights
for
node
stuff.
Aside
from
borin
foundation
things
I've
been
working
with
digital
ocean
I
post-mortem
for
the
down
time
we
suffered
a
few
days
ago.
If
in
a
room
it
recalls,
we
had
tum,
it
was
a
major
slowdown
in
traffic
people
couldn't
download
stuff.
So
we've
got
a
post-mortem
from
digital
ocean
we're
just
trying
to
decide
what
to
what
to
do
with.
It.
A
M
Okay,
so
that
was
good
timing,
because
I
was
mostly
stalling
continue
to
work
on
carrying
the
goldmine.
We've
got
a
bunch
of
work
moving
forward
new
collaborators
on
it.
There's
pull
request
that
came
in
today.
That
should
get
it
working
on
windows,
which
is
really
awesome.
We
did
a
release
of
v6
and
v4
last
week
did
a
back
porting
session
this
week,
which
I
live,
streamed
general
issue
and
PR
review,
and
some
other
you
know,
internal
bits
that
need
to
get
done
next
up
would
be
rich.
F
Usual
PR
an
issue
review
a
couple
of
small
several
small
test,
reef
actors
and
fixes,
and
then
a
bunch
of
you
know
dealing
with
what
is
both
the
most
amazing
and
most
terrible
aspects
of
any
project
like
this,
which
is
people.
A
A
A
G
A
Of
the
debugger
on
it's
kind
of
important,
isn't
it
ok
cool
so
on
to
the
meeting
today
in
this
beautiful
document
that
I
think
rich
is
responsible
for
putting
together?
This
is
this
is
lovely,
rich,
so
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
issue
number
10
155,
which
is
actually
not
the
discussion
issue?
This
is
restoring
copyright
in
the
headers,
but
the
discussion
for
this
is
mainly
over
the
tsc
repo
issue
number
174.
Now
without
James.
Here
we
actually
Michael,
who
is
a
more
authoritative
source,
I
mean.
A
James
is
here
now,
but
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion.
A
lot
of
concern
about
this
and
I
think
maybe
Michael
you're
in
the
best
place
to
just
give
a
quick
summary
and
then
answer
any
questions
of
people
who
have
concerns
here.
But
they,
even
though
it's
been
an
open
on
TAC
repoed,
because
the
code
is
in.
A
I
So
it's
actually
pretty
basic,
even
though
it's
quite
annoying
basically
you're
you're
not
supposed
to
modify
the
attribution
and
licensing
information
in
files
when
the
copyright
holders
or
original
authors
had
put
them
in
the
files.
It's
a
basic
tenant,
pretty
much
every
open
source
license
and
it's
certainly
part
of
how
people
have
interpreted
the
MIT
license.
According
to
all
of
the
lawyers
that
I
talked
to
I'm,
not
a
I'm,
not
a
lawyer
and
I'm,
and
just
as
a
disclaimer
I'm,
not
currently
giving
advice
on
behalf
of
the
foundation.
I
We
actually
have
to
get
our
counsel
to
do
that.
If
we
want
that,
but
everybody
that
we
talk
to
you
so
far
kind
of
agrees
that
this
needs
to
get
restored
in
some
way.
If
we
want
to
modify
it,
we
need
to
get
the
authors
or
people
that
have
some
sort
of
authorship
right
to
it
to
to
modify
it,
and
even
if
we
did
do
that,
we
would
want
it.
I
We
would
need
to
first
restore
what
had
been
removed
and
then
modify
it
after
that,
and-
and
this
is
important
for
quite
a
few
reasons-
one
is
that,
like
we
shouldn't,
be
violating
our
own
license
and
we
actually.
This
is
just
like
a
bad
thing
in
general,
but
also
like
we
want
people
to
respect
the
licensing
info
that
we
put
in
m-files
and
we've
actually
already
had
instances
where
people
have
removed
our
attribution
and
we've
actually
had
to
ask
him
to
put
it
back.
I
N
I
would
add
to
that
is
that
there,
dude
I,
still
have
a
question
over
whether
the
entire
original
header
needs
to
be
restored
or
whether
it's
just
to
be
copyright.
Attribution
I'd
rather
not
put
the
license
text
in
their
presence
and
just
had
the
copyright
in
a
reference
to
the
lightning
strike.
So.
I
I
wanted
that
and
I
asked
for
that
and
advocated
that,
and
the
legal
people
said
that
that
we
need
to
restore
it
as
it
was
we.
We
could
modify
it
later
if
we
get
some
people
signed
on,
but
we
first
have
to
restore
what
was
there
as
it
was
there,
because
the
language
in
the
MIT
license
essentially
states
that
you
know
you
have
to
retain
this.
The
block
as
it
is.
It
doesn't
really
allow
you
to
modify
how
you're
attributing
license.
You
need
to
get
the
permission
of
the
author
odor.
I
C
N
Okay,
I
can
update
my
my
my
tiara,
then
with
the
original
ones.
Now
the
PR
is
only
going
to
touch
the
files
that
were
changed
in
the
original.
You
are
that
still
exists.
A
lot
of
that
code
has
moved
around
Corbin
altered,
skint
and
there's
quite
a
few
files
know
that
were
touching
that
original
PR
that
no
longer
exists
on
our
trade
or
have
been
renamed
or
moved
out
to
other
places.
N
N
C
I
So,
but
by
the
way,
I
think
that
just
restoring
the
ones
that
are
still
there
is
is
enough
to
then
move
forward
with
with
additional
conversations
to
try
and
move
towards
a
unified,
smaller
set,
hopefully
just
to
a
unified
s,
pdx
reference,
but
yeah.
This
is
like
kind
of
the
first
step
in
that
direction.
We
can't
really
continue
that
comfortable.
This
gets
handled
as.
N
D
N
The
question
is
that
the
original
files
that
were
touching
it
in
the
original
PR,
some
of
those
those
files
and
applications
do
not
exist.
The
code
has
been
broken
off
into
other
files,
moved
around
or
deleted
out
like
right,
and
the
first
node
gases
is
a
really
good
example
of
that.
Another
example
is
test
buffer
Jaya,
which
has
been
broken
out
and
refactored.
N
N
This
question
sets
also
removed.
Another
example
with
the
like
the
bootstrap
node
there's
been
code
added
to
that
thins
so
that
the
changes
have
been
made.
They
would
not
be
covered
under
that
attribution,
so
we
have
to
restore
the
original
header
that
would
end
up
changing
the
attribution
in
that
and
for
that
additional
code.
So.
I
M
I
M
I
N
Ok,
I'm
going
to
agree
with
the
intent
and
hunterson
agree
with
that.
We
need
to
do
this,
it's
just
there.
There
are
some
complexities
and
how
we
do
it
that
are
going
to
make
it
rather
difficult,
and
this
you
know
these
files
that
have
been
moved
or
broken
apart
and
not
changing
attribution
and
the
changes
that
have
been
added.
Since
then.
N
That's
where
the,
where
we're
having
some
issue,
so
what
I
can
see
is
in
those
files
like
good
step,
node,
restoring
the
original
attribution
but
putting
in
there
some
code
copyright
under
this
other
code,
with
the
with
a
new
attribution
where
it's
augmenting
near
reserved
one,
but
the
only
thing
I
can
see
that
would
it
would
work
if
they're
not
going
to
be
happy
with
anything
other
than
just
seeing
the
original
header
as
is
byte
per
bite.
Then
we've
got
a
problem
hold.
D
N
D
N
That
in
that's
the
question,
but
it
is
derived
from
if
you
look
at
the
little
license
it
detects
the
licenses.
So
the
attribution
must
exist
in
any
code
that
contains
significant
portions,
so
derivative
code
as
well.
So
those
looking
like
the
new
bootstrap
node
would
be
considered
a
derivative
of
the
original
source,
node
yeah.
That.
I
N
I
I
need
we
may
be
politically
without
first
restoring
this
kind
of
stuff
know
if
we
that's
what
I'm
good
restoring
a
ok.
Exactly
exactly.
Does
this
first
part
and
like
forget
for
a
second
about
the
significant
portions
of
the
files
stuff
like
if
they
come
back
and
say
like
oh
well,
there's
the
other
files
that
we're
still
worried
about.
Then
we
can
have
this
conversation,
but
it
may
not
even
be
necessary
because
you
may
be
after
not
to
move
to
better
solution,
anything
that.
F
N
Okay,
I
kind
of
disagree
that
we
don't
need
to
worry
about.
The
substantive
portions
partner
means
is
if
we
are
making
a
good-faith
effort
to
restore
those
headers
for
the
code
that
is
modified.
We
need
to
make
an
effort
to
to
add
the
attribution
where
that
code
currently
exist.
Otherwise
we
are
not
faithfully.
N
I
D
I
Yeah
we
shouldn't
modify
the
attribution.
That's
there.
We
we
need
to
insert
this
basically
below
any
listing
attribution
which
looks
really
annoying
because,
it
probably
will
say,
copyright,
no
dejes
contributors
and
then
copyright
joint
node.js
contributors,
but
that's
technically
what
we're
supposed
to
do.
D
A
Nope,
okay,
so
take
it
to
github.
If
you
have
more
questions,
we
we
can
bring
this
up
again
next
week,
if
there's
more
going
on,
but
let's
try
and
get
it
resolved
as
much
as
possible
on
github.
Okay,
next
issue
is
pull
request:
number
9,
8
40,
which
is
attempting
to
upgrade
to
nvm
vision
for
Jeremiah.
Are
you
this
person
to
take
give
us
a
summary
on
where
we're
at
with
this?
B
Yeah
I,
don't
exactly
remember
what
the
outcome
of
the
last
meeting
was
and
basically
nobody
had
a
strong
opinion
on
that
and
we
didn't
have
any
more
discussion
since
then.
Maybe
it's
actually
best
to
do
what
I
think
miles
or
Jeremiah
proposed
at
the
start
of
the
meeting
like
get
opinion
from
the
NPM
people.
M
So
I've
talked
to
the
NPM
people
about
this
a
little
bit
and
I
believe
that
James
was
involved
in
the
conversation
as
well.
Personally,
what
I'd
like
to
see
happen
would
be
getting
NPM
for
into
master
as
long
as
its
passing
her
or
chest.
Sweet
I,
don't
really
see
any
reason.
You
know
why
we
shouldn't
have
that
on
master
and
have
people
who
are
running
off
of
master
testing
it
out.
D
Yeah,
so
going
on
to
master
is
easy,
like
I
can
do
that
today,
there's
not
really
a
reason
not
to
to
put
it
on
the
master
I
think
unless
someone
objects,
the
questions
really
dewy
back
for
it
to
v7
and
like
do
we
consider
anything
they're
like
actually
breaking
and
again.
This
comes
back
to
the
question
that
we
had
around
MP
m3
was
well.
Is
this
like
part
of
our
API?
D
A
B
Well,
I
mean
like
they
did
post
the
list
of
breaking
changes
and
the
pull
request
that
we
are
talking
about
for
for
some
of
the
things
yeah
I
do
and
I
wouldn't
consider
those
like
breaking
breaking
changes.
You
know
for,
for
others
like
at
and
Pat
has
been
removed.
I
have
no
idea
what
that
means,
like
literally
hands.
C
All
packages,
but
this
true
not
supporting
partial
shrink
wraps,
I
think,
is
something
that
could
be
a
little
iffy.
I
don't,
I
just
don't
know
the
use
case
out
there.
M
A
So
I
guess
the
question
here
is
like
we
were.
We
were
fairly,
so
that's
for
my
name.
If
you
have
three
because
because
of
the
major
change
in
user
experience
that
it,
we
should
consider
it
a
breaking
change.
This
is
much
less
Delta
than
then
two
to
three.
So
the
outstanding
question
is
whether
anyone
thinks
that
this
is
enough
of
a
change
of
user
experience
to
warrant
calling
it
a
breaking
change
for
nodes
perspective.
A
A
Okay,
so
this
seems
to
be
difficult
to
make
it
progress,
so
how
about
we
do
this?
Instead,
we
bring
it
back
for
a
vote
next
week.
So
put
the
ctc
you'll
notice
that
there
will
be
a
vote
and
then
decide
it
that
way,
because
otherwise
we're
just
going
to
keep
on
discussing
it
without
really
coming
to
a
conclusion,
because
it's
all
a
bit
too
vague
and
we
don't
really
know-
is
it
sound
good
I
mean
okay,.
F
D
Can
we
can
already
lend
this
a
master,
but
like
the
since
the
changes
in
this
particular
version
are,
like
very,
very
small,
may
be
a
good
opportunity
to
actually
do
that
and
then,
like
essentially
have
like
a
revert
ready.
If
we
need
it
and
then
we
can,
it's
like
it's
like
kind
of
a
gauging
thing.
D
So
if
someone
was
actually
actually
hit
hit
by
like
one
of
these
things
in
like
an
on
backwards
compatible
way,
even
though
they're
like
really
like
quite
obscure,
if
we
have
like
actual
like
noise
about
that,
like
that,
tells
us
that
that
we
need
to
be
more
careful
than
maybe
we
would
be
otherwise.
But
otherwise,
if
it
sort
of
like
an
indicator
bit,
you
know
we're
not
really
likely
to
run
into
those
things,
and
maybe
that's
like
information
that
we
need
for
the
future
that
this
might
be
a
good
opportunity
to
get.
M
So
I
just
ran
a
quick
test
on
pre,
published
pre
published,
still
works.
It
just
gives
a
warning
about
how
its
behavior
is
going
to
change
in
DM
five,
so
we
should
find
out
what
the
timeline
is
for
npm
five,
and
whether
or
not
that's
going
to
be
ready
in
time
for
no
28,
because
if
that's
the
case
and
there's
going
to
be
bigger,
deltas
and
change,
it
may
be
good
to
get
this
in
and
seven
so
people
at
least
get
the
deprecation
warning.
So
we're
not
just
like
changing
behavior
on
them.
Randomly.
A
Jeremiah
does
to
your
point,
I
wonder
where
the
people
would
actually
report
them
to
us
if
they
had
those
problems.
Problems
I'm,
not
sure
that
it
would
be
natural
for
a
lot
of
people
to
say.
I've.
Just
hang
out
in
a
problem
with
NPM
I'm
gonna
go
reported
to
the
node
people.
How
so
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sure
we'd
hear
about
those
like
in
the
same
way
that
we
hear
about
breaking
changes
on
Irene
right.
D
We
might
be
able
to
coordinate
a
bit
with
NPM
to
to
get
them
or
to
get
like
some
amount
of
watching
them
or
I.
Don't
know
whatever
on
their
issue
tracker,
to
help
notify
us
of
that
sort
of
thing
if
they
thought
it
might
be
happening.
That
could
be
I
mean
that'd,
be
good
metrics
for
them
too,
so
we
might
be
able
to
coordinate
with
them
with
the
hot.
A
G
Notes
are
mine,
so
I
just
was
collecting
my
thoughts
and
I
asked
Michael
the
beginning
of
this
call.
Whether
to
we
should
we
might
bring
this
up
here.
Essentially,
the
the
trace
of
NPR
from
the
VA
team
is
is
pretty
much
ready
to
land,
except
that
Michael
Dawson
expressed
concerns
that
it
is
how
the
implementation
is
tied
to
VA.
It's
not
like
deeply
tied,
but
it
is
tag
we're
time
to
be
a
and
should
we
do
something
about
that
or
should
that
affect
this
PR
yeah.
H
So
it's
a
barrier
to
somebody
else,
whereas
if
we
do,
if
we
do
the
thing
where
we
you
know,
we
don't
need
to
fully
figure
it
that
abstraction
of
the
v8
engine,
but
just
enough
that
somebody
else
could
easily
implement
the
four
or
five
functions
actually
uses
from
this
lighter
happy
and
I
think
effectively
what
it
needs
is
you
know
what
I
looked
at
it
is
that
the
VA's
engine
needs
a
pointer
back
to
its
own
data,
and
so
you
know
in
the
trace.
We
end
up
having
a
way
where
you
can
get.
K
So
the
way
I
see
it
I
think
I
mean
that
it's
all
doable,
but
at
this
point
the
so
having
this
PR
open
means
that
it's
not
easy
to
collaborate
on
it.
It's
all
on
max
like
to
continue
taking
this
forward.
So
so
none
of
these
things
are
complex
are
complicated.
They
just
need
to
be
done
and
it
will
be
nice
to
have
some
collaboration
on
roads
and
and
yeah,
so
so
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
the
best
idea
to
hold
it
up.
I
do
agree
with
the
general
idea
that
this
should
be.
You.
O
Tn,
ok,
so
great.
O
If
we
forget
the
fact
that
true
servants
is
has
been
integrated
into
v8
and
that
you
can
look
at
trace
events
in
v8
I,
don't
see
why
I
mean
it's,
it's
basically
a
header
file
and
any
engine
should
be
able
to
implement
similar
functionality
using
the
API
and
the
header
file
correct,
because,
like
I've
used
it
and
it's
like
okay
well
he's
going
to
trace
when
this
thing
is
called
my
code.
It's
like
good.
It.
H
K
So
an
abstraction
can
be
put
into
place,
but
it
doesn't
exist
right
now
right
so
so
you
need
a
platform
to
use
and
notice
built
on
top
of
v8.
So
and
that's
what
we
have
available,
that's
the
only
thing
that's
available
right
now,
so
the
question
is:
who
has
the
burden
of
some
of
adding
the
support
for
the
next
vm?
Is
it?
Is
it
the
person
who's?
Building
this
PR
as
a
first
step?
Is
it?
Do
we
allow
collaboration?
K
H
O
Ollie
like,
but
something
like
how,
in
the
header
files,
you
have
v8
platform
right
where
it's
like,
okay.
Well,
it's
up
to
the
easier
to
implement
platform
specifics,
but
here's
the
API
and
then
all
I'm
thinking
is
for
this
PR.
It's
like
you
basically
move
that
same
code
block
over.
So
it's
not
located
in
that
specific
header
file.
O
K
So,
and
and
by
the
way
that
to
be
clear,
like
I'm,
not
saying
it's
a
burden
to
do,
I
think
I,
just
think
it's
that
timing,
it
Bennett
on
one
person
and
holding
up
this
PR
may
I
mean
that
this
is
held
up
indefinitely.
Waiting
for
that
person,
because
matt
is
also
focusing
on
FF
I.
So
so-
and
I
don't
know-
I
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
make
this
year
be
held
up
by
the
need
of
the
four
or
this
particular
abstraction
to
be
put
in
place.
K
H
Yeah,
so
it
sounds
like
I
mean
I,
don't
want
to
prevent
it
to
just
I,
don't
want
to
have
it
to
sit
out
there
and
land.
My
preference
would
be
that
it
land
and
then
it
gets
fixed
up,
but
it
sounds
like
what
you're
saying
is:
that's
not
going
to
happen
because
Matt
the
tension
is
going
to
be
somewhere
else
right.
Well,.
K
I
mean
so
late
having
a
pull
request.
That's
pretty
huge
open
for
a
very
long
time
is
that
I
mean
there's
always
going
to
be
things
that
continue
popping
up
question
is:
when
is
it
I
what
is
necessary
to
make
it
land
so
that
the
individual
pieces
can
be
identified,
and
then
it's
not
necessary
that
madden
is
the
only
person
who's
going
to
do
that
work.
There's
collaborators
who
could
do
it
I
could
I
could
work
on
that
as
well.
H
H
A
N
H
A
Objections
to
that
process
landing
experimental,
we
know
what
needs
to
be
done.
If
we
can't
get
it
done
being
a
bit
version
8
in
maybe
we
pull
it
out.
Well,
maybe
we
do
something
else
with
them,
but
I
don't
see
what
I
don't
see,
how
we
can't
get
done.
It
did
mean
there's
enough
people
here
then
no
one
needs
to.
C
A
Okay,
good
good
anything
else
before
we
move
into
QA
nope,
okay,
so
it's
a
chance
for
QA
on
our
public
life
for
our
listeners
who
are
not
on
this
call.
So
anyone
that's
listening
to
the
live
stream.
If
you
have
questions
for
the
CTC
to
answer,
please
drop
them
into
the.
I
believe
the
youtube
chad
is
the
best
place
for
them,
but
there's
also
a
number
of
other
places.