►
Description
A
That's
okay,
all
right!
Thanks,
alright
and
I
see
if
you
just
show
up
now,
I
removed
you
from
the
minutes
in
in
under
present.
So
you
might
want
to
add
yourself
and
let's
go
to
let's
really
quickly
review
the
previous
meeting,
even
though
this
is
something
that
we're
talking
about
doing
differently
or
not
doing
discussion
about
eagerly
exiting
process
on
basically
promise
rejections.
I
think
we
decided
that
we
want
to
Jeremiah
here
for
this.
So
it's
on
the
agenda
again
this
week
and
we
didn't
really
talk
about
it.
A
Anybody,
okay,
great!
Let's,
let's
move
on
then
to
this
week's
agenda.
There
are
five
items
on
the
agenda:
there's
a
bring
string
decoder
into
the
foundation.
I
believe
Mateo.
Put
that
on
the
agenda.
There's
the
promise.
Rejection
thing
we
remit,
we
mentioned
that's
Jeremiah's,
there's
restoring
the
debug
break,
Elias
I,
think
that
might
have
been
Rafael,
but
I
have
to
open
it
to
check.
A
B
Yeah
but
things
have
been
cooking
up
for
a
while
and
more
or
less
it
was
me
not
being
able
to
put
the
right
label
on
the
EPS
proposal,
the
TS
proposal.
It's
some
extent
the
second
one
is
little
bit
updated,
so
we
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
it
and
maybe
talk
more
in
fully
in
a
follow-up
meeting
or
something
like
that.
Okay,.
A
B
B
Okay,
it's
it's
a
tool
to
run
to
add
the
same
logic
exported,
and
it
is
the
same
as
as
of
now
it
is
the
same
machinery
of
readable
stream
to
do
the
same,
to
do
the
same
job
one
of
the
problem,
yet
is
that
it
doesn't
mean
it
wasn't
updated
for
a
long
while
so
it
currently,
the
most
uploaded
version
is,
is
what
was
shipped
I,
think
we
live
a
tan
or
something
like
that
0:10
or
something
like
that.
We
did
a
release
a
month
ago
or
something
one
two
toe
to
toe.
B
That
was
the
the
one
from
node,
seven,
okay,
this
module
it's
being
used
by
readable
stream,
browserify
and
web
pack.
So
it's
on
all
the
stack
it's
on
the
tree
for
all
of
those
trees,
all
of
those
three.
So
it's
given
that
it,
it
was
not
updated
and
I
do
not
end.
I
was
speaking
with
rod
and
rod.
Sorry
kitten
doesn't
have
time
to
bring
it
home
and
move
it
forward.
We
all
agreed
that
it
can
be
brought
back
to
the
foundation.
B
A
D
B
B
Force
in
the
corner,
it's
less
so
it's
I
would
say
less
critical
in
the
sense
that
there
is
no
modification
traffic
at
all.
So
we
will
let
them
think
about,
but
I
don't
I,
don't
think
we
can.
There
is
anything
to
plan
for
that,
like
we
might
to
some,
except
you
might
even
decide
to
you
to
to
bundle
it
I,
don't
know
I'm.
That
is
not
like
that.
B
The
full
thing
I
just
updated
it
I
just
look
into
it,
because
somebody
tried
to
bundle,
bundle
it
for
some
Debian
package
or
whatever,
and
they
found
out
that
all
the
tests
were
failing
on
the
other
that
one
from
Europe
ten
or
something
so
on
a
current,
no
J,
yes
system.
So
that's
why
I
got
I
saw
the
ice.
I
saw
it
and
it's
not
being
really
updated.
Self
eyford
I
find
appears
on
all
the
on
web
back
home,
but
I
can't
Brazil
five
actually
gets
it
update.
D
A
A
A
A
I'm
not
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
same
consensus
rules
apply
to
the
TSE,
although
I
imagine
they
do
yeah,
okay,
cool
great,
so
next,
next
off
TSC,
which
when
is
the
next
TSC
meeting
anyway
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
later.
May
22nd
is
the
next
ESC
meeting.
So
assuming
it
can
wait.
That
long
will
be
pick
up
at
that
meeting.
I'll.
A
B
F
A
discussion
on
that
what
we
decide
to
do,
at
least
for
now
is
we
just
have
an
NPM
user
which
what
we
use
it
as
a
backup.
So
we
ask
that
free,
every
NPM,
you
add
that
user
to
the
as
one
of
the
collaborators,
but
otherwise
you
know,
we've
still
just
been
adding
collaborators
directly
to
the
modules
and
using
those
for
publishing
the
NPM
user
is
really
just
there,
so
that,
if
you
know
for
some
reason,
the
the
other
collaborators
are
not
available,
we
can
use
that
one
to
add
or
remove
people
as
appropriate.
F
G
B
H
D
Anyone
else
willing
to
give
like
a
summary
of
this
I
haven't
been
able
to
even
read
all
the
comments
on
it,
but
like
I,
mean
we've
been
discussing
this
for,
like
over
a
year,
is
the
thing
we
have
the.
We
have
a
deprecation
warning
that
says
we're
going
to
do
something
about
it
and
we
should
decide
to
do
something.
C
C
C
C
A
B
C
A
A
So
I'm
going
to
oh
yeah,
it's
pretty
recent
comment,
I'm
going
to
move
that
we
push
this
back
to
github
at
least
for
another
week.
I
mean
I,
just
don't
I
mean
the
conversation
seems
to
be
pretty
active,
seems
to
be
comments
as
recently
as
today
and
yeah
III
wouldn't
want
a
short
circuit.
The
the
discussion,
even
if
it's
been
going
on
for
a
year,
go
ahead.
James.
C
C
I
C
J
D
D
D
J
J
C
D
J
C
Possible
that
we
might
need
to
make
spec
changes,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
do
is
bring
that
the
possibility
up
to
that
at
the
next
tc39
meeting.
It
would
be
nice
if
we
could
have
a
little
bit
of
discussion.
Some
point
we're
not
doing
on
this
call,
but
discussion
of
what
kinds
of
changes
might
be
useful
and
I.
Think
there's
already
been
some
discussion
and
that's
right
about
along
his
life
and
then
might
is.
Is.
A
A
F
C
C
A
Yeah,
if
you
could
work
with
Jeremiah
and
whoever
else
to
like
assemble
the
right
group
of
people,
if
you're
willing
to
take
that
on,
that
would
probably
be
a
really
useful
thing,
because
I
think
that
informed
motivated
stakeholders
are
going
to
like
you
know,
hopefully
come
to
a
better
decision
than
you
know.
Then
this
you
know
kind
of
spotty
coverage.
We're
going
to
have
here.
Yep.
A
E
Say
I've
I've
read
most
of
the
issues
I
think.
Basically
we
need
debug.
We
need
a
mechanism
to
tell
versions
from
6-3
7-6
to
stop
on.
First
line
inspect
make
doesn't
exist
in
those
versions,
so
we
want
to
put
back
debug
break
essentially
to
mean
break
on
first
line.
There
was
some
discussion.
If
we
do
that,
should
we
take
out
inspect
break
so
I?
Guess
that's
really
the
two
questions.
Is
it
okay
to
restore
debug
break,
which
I
think
everybody
agrees
on
and
if
once
we
do,
that,
should
we
keep
inspect
break?
E
A
E
They
have
to
specify-
let's
say
they
version
detect
that
they
should
use
inspect.
They
also
need
to
tell
it
to
break
on
first
line
and,
if
you're,
using
a
version
before
seven
six
you're
going
to
use
dash
dash,
debug
break
and
it's
uncomfortable,
if
you're
using
seven,
seven
to
then
use
inspect
break
there,
so
they
I
think
what
they
want
is
just
debug
break
works
everywhere
for
a
while
longer
and
then
once
you
know
all
once
we're
all
settled
on
inspect
break,
they
can
move
to
that.
D
C
C
G
I
A
D
A
B
A
Think
it's
also
like
you
know
we
didn't
really.
We
had
a
very
accelerated
deprecation
and
removal
cycle
necessarily
for
for
the
debug
protocol
and
therefore
that
that
kind
of
argues,
for
maybe
it
makes
sense
to
be
a
little
bit.
You
know
easygoing
on
letting
letting
some
of
the
things
that
used
to
work.
You
know
keeping
them
hanging
around
a
little
longer
when
it's
possible,
so
you
know
doing
something
like
this
other.
I
I
J
E
Will
still
be
right
because,
even
though
it'll
say
debug
break
will
determine
in
version
7
what
interfacial
protocol
it
uses
will
be
the
inspect.
So
if
you
specify
dash
debug
break
on
its
own,
at
least,
if
we
do
it,
the
way
used
to
be
done
in
version
7,
yeah
yeah
in
version
7
debug
break
on
its
own
will
activate
the
old
one.
A
Ones,
namely
at
least
one
that
it
can't
land
until
that
gets
resolved,
so
we
can
either
kick
it
back
to
the
issue
for
a
little
while
longer
or
we
can
call
for
a
vote.
The
argument
for
calling
for
a
vote
on
this
now
I
think
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
James,
is
that
we're
getting
awfully
close
to
version
eight
release
time,
and
we
really
ought
to
have
this
sorted
and,
and
the
Knightley's
argument
is
also
another
reason
for
doing
it
sooner
rather
than
later
so
go
ahead,
James.
What
were
you
going
to
say
say.
C
A
Yeah
this
was
definitely
a
minus
one,
from
Jeremiah
and
unambiguously
and
and
Ben
Ben
I
think
probably
just
had
yeah
I
just
want
to
tests
and
things
like
that,
but
but
he's
not
around
to
clear
his
his
objection.
So
that's
another
one,
see
I
think
this
is
probably
headed
for
vote.
Although
I
guess
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
do
we
want
to
do
we
want
to
leave
it
open
for
a
little
while
longer
do
we
want
to
like
make
a
decision?
The.
C
A
E
D
E
Point
like
it
to
me
like
what
it
was:
seven
eight,
seven
nine
then
like
when
I
I,
guess
I
thought
that
then
that
was
like.
Okay,
we
need
to
address
like
within
a
major
version
within
seven.
They
shouldn't
have
to
use
two
different
syntaxes.
That
makes
sense
because
you're
not
to
say,
inspect,
break
four.
Seven,
seven
and
higher
and
inspect
debug
break
four
seven
six
and
lower,
but
it
sounds
like
in
seven
they
can
use,
inspect
and
debug
break
and
then
eight
we're
saying
just
use
inspect
break.
H
D
C
B
Break,
even
even
if
we
don't
want
to
have
the
same
dealer,
applying
just
printing
a
line
and
the
back
rate
is
not
there
anymore,
please
use
inspect
break
is
actually
way
more
useful,
because,
right
now
it
says
there
is
no
option.
This
is
not
a
good
method
option
and
be
questioned
how
to
find
where,
where
that
is
so.
J
E
E
C
A
Oh
meow
as
Raphael
points
out
in
the
in
the
issue.
What
this
means
is
that
if
I
have
an
ID,
if
I
have
a,
if
I
have
an
ID,
if
I
have
you
know
visual
magic
code,
1.0
and
I'm,
debugging,
node,
seven,
happily
and
then
I
want
to
start
using
node
eight,
my
ID
will
no
longer
be
able
to
debug
it.
I'll
have
to
buy
it
off
the
upgrade
or
something,
and
that's.
H
G
D
C
E
E
E
I
It
may
not
be
expected
so
now.
Well,
debug
break
should
only
work
with
inspect.
If
you
don't
specify
anything
else.
Do
you
agree
that
I
think
is
I.
Agree
is
an
error,
so
so
the
concern
I'm
trying
to
am
worried
about
is
that
there's
so
many
people
who
are
muscle
memory
of
you
using
inspect
debug
trick
and
if
we
can
avoid
an
extra
invocation
of
node
for
them
to
let
let
them
debug
I,
think
it's
nice
of
us
to
do.
I
C
For
those
that
have
already
updated
to
the
inspector
protocol,
I
think
one
of
the
issues
is
there's
already
IDE
that
supports
our
instructor
protocol,
but
use
debug
break
without
restoring
it
as
an
alias.
Then
those
breaking
those
users
otherwise
would
not
have
to
upgrade
their
IDs.
So
yeah.
It's
a
good
point.
E
Yeah
but
the
word:
what
I
think
I'm
hearing
from
everyone
today
is
that
since
they're,
using
version
detection
anyways,
if
its
own
its,
if
it
from
8:00
on
we
say
you
need
inspect,
break
like
yes
and
Knightley's.
It's
kind
of
awkward
right
now,
because
it's
somewhere
between
seven
and
eight,
but
once
it's
eight,
then
you
just
know
from
eight
on.
If
you
detect
version
eight,
then
you
run
inspect.
Break
like
that's.
That's
easy
logic
to
fix
seems
seems
to
me.
A
J
C
E
C
C
J
J
How
long
this
was
because
if
we
add
the
chain
and
sellers
and
if
they
would
explain
that
and
if
the
jealous
would
break
something
worse
than
intense
of
news,
our
journalist
I'm
going
to
be
wrong
here.
I
probably
need
to
check
that.
So
I
will
just
abstain
for
now
and
play
title
to
github
when
I
have
more
information.
E
You,
okay,
so
I
think
what
we're
at
is
that
debug
break.
We
believe
that
debug
break
should
be
added
as
an
alias
to
print
the
deprecation
warning,
but
Nikita
wants
to
investigate
one
thing:
let's
see
if
that's
gonna,
if
the
alias
route
is
gonna
call,
Tom
wants
to
talk
back,
verify
that
it
won't
cause
problems.
Then
we
should
restore
the
drug
break,
it
should
be
an
alias
and
it
should
print
a
deprecation
warning.
Finished.
Yeah.
A
F
A
F
C
A
F
Follow
up
with
Sam
and
ask
him
I've
had
discussions
with
him
as
well
and
he's
an
agreement
with
what
I
just
described
that,
basically,
you
know
for
8-3
we're
not
going
to
pull
anything
new
in
at
this
point,
but
for
nine
we
should
look
at
it.
I
guess
in
that
context,
I
think
he
was
probably
putting
it
on
for
the
discussion
in
terms
of
you
know.
Do
we
need
to
get
the
okay
to
pull
that
in
for
nine
I,
say.
A
A
C
C
And
streams
that
I'm
investigating
that
apparently
has
roots
in
some
v8
changes:
I'm
looking
at
those
but
I'm
going
to
be
doing
going
ahead
with
the
our
seed
release
candidate,
zero,
build
later
on
today,
let's
copy
out
that
in
between
now
and
either
the
next
RC,
the
one
after
that,
there
still
might
be
a
couple
of
breaking
changes.
So
today's
is
not
necessarily
a
true
release
candidate,
but
it's
as
close
as
we
can
get.
F
C
I
I
need
to
run
the
full
benchmarks
again
after
five
point:
eight
nine
degrees
likely
less
ago
than
a
chance
to
do
that,
and
that's
what's
going
to
do
today
to
see
if
it's
still
as
significant,
but
the
v18
is
investigating
to
see
what
what
is
causing
causing
it.
It
appears
to
be
some
change
within
v8.
It's
led
to
the
digression
and
it
is.
J
B
Just
to
just
to
give
an
update,
the
problem
was
one
part
of
the
problem.
Again,
since
one
was
a
unoptimized
poor
that
crankshaft
add
an
optimizer
to
pass
for
array.
Dot
shift,
which
is
not
part
in
of
which,
which
was
now
has
been
ported
to
the
six,
the
what
would
be
D
eight
six
branch
and
if
we
need
to
be
back
port
at
the
fight
of
the
25.9
III
ship.
With
that
yeah.
I
I
think
I
think
should
be
possible
to
backward
it
to
both
five
point.
Nine
and
five
eight
eight
I
think
we
will
have
to
float
this
as
a
batch
because
of
King
doesn't
back
board
performance
fixes.
The
other
alternative
is
that,
given
that
array,
dot
shift
is
so
uncommon,
we
do
have
a
were
crammed
that
we
could
do
in
the
in
the
source
code
itself.
That
would
resolve
this,
so
the
Challenger,
the
backboard,
is
that,
given
that
be
eight
five
point,
eight
is
still
stable
and
five
point.
Nine
is
still
going
to
be
stable.
A
C
Would
just
say
that
once
the
really
scared,
I
build
builders
started
and
I
appreciate
everyone
kicking
the
tires
on
it
doing
testing
and
looking
for
any
any
additional
regressions.
That
release
is
scheduled
for
May
30th?
Oh,
oh,
the
other
thing
is.
We
do
have
a
pull
request
for
NTM
five
it'll
be
beta
its
planning
on
going
stable
before
the
30th
I've
told
them
that
I
have
a
problem
getting
it
in,
but
in
getting
it
into
the
Beast
candidates.
C
A
Cool
I
guess
it's
time
to
solicit
questions
Q&A
time
and
while
we're
waiting
for
questions
to
come
along,
I
will
read
off
what
the
next
few
meetings
are.
We
have
a
the
next
CPC
meeting
will
be
one
week
from
today,
but
at
that
time
is
wrong.
All
right,
so
it's
gonna
be
a
twenty
hundred
UTC,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
and
the
next
tc39
meeting
will
be
on
May,
22nd
and
I
believe
that
one
is
always
at
2100
UTC
8a
p.m.
UTC.
A
There
is
a
Google
Calendar
link
that
you
can
follow
to
find
out
when
diagnostics
working
group
is
meeting
or
post-mortem
working
group
or
LTS
so
or
anything
else
like
that.
If
the
release
team
has
meetings,
those
sorts
of
things
and
the
community
committee
there's
a
good
one
and
in
the
meantime
do
we
have
any
questions.