►
Description
B
Yeah,
I
am
here
and
oh
yeah
last
week
was
mostly
just
I
had
a
couple
of
own
pr's:
nothing
big
track
down
a
segfault
and
v8,
and
otherwise
just
the
usual
and
next
would
be
Bradley.
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Right
so
did
a
bunch
of
work
around
adding
in
new
machines
for
PCA,
X
and
Linux,
one
debugging
an
issue
with
the
add-on
tests
on
AIX,
where
they
were
starting
to
run
before
or
the
vm
was
completely
built.
Some
initial
discussion
on
working
to
get
nightly
code
coverage
published
so
and
having
that
published
to
code
coverage
that
no
gesture
org
starting
to
prepare.
For
my
note,
interactive
presentations,
you
know
one
which
is
a
build
work
with
update
in
a
post-mortem
work
of
update
and
then
just
general
PR
review
landing
and
keeping
up
with
the
issue.
J
Heyo
I
have
just
been
dealing
with
a
bunch
of
follow-up
items
from
the
board
meeting
on
Monday.
That's
my
main
task.
Lately,
nothing
too
fancy
or
interesting.
Now
we're
all
muscle
trying
to
get
I
guess
things
together
for
this
tc39
meeting
as
well.
I
don't
have
the
agenda
in
front
of
me
system
business
and
tell
me
who
the
next
person
is
Brian.
What.
N
M
sorry
so
lots
of
node
foundation,
business,
including
board,
meeting
lots
of
bill
working
group
work,
including
a
major
arm,
clustered
clean
up
and
adding
some
new
hardware
they're
chasing
some
OSX
resources,
which
we
should
have
resolved
one
way
or
another
within
the
next
week
or
two.
I
added
a
claim.
341
see
I
know'd
for
some
basic
testing,
their
have
a
blog
post
sitting
in
the
queue
in
no
jst
look
for
review
and
a
bunch
of
other
little
minor
things
not
a
whole
lot
in
know.
Gia
/
node,
though
next
is
Trevor.
O
O
A
A
Do
that
get
more
commit
sin
as
well
looking
to
do
more
of
that
talking
if
you're
interesting,
that
I
believe
evan
is
and
I
am
trying
to
get
CI
agreeing
again
without
making
too
much
of
a
pest
of
myself
to
the
build
working
group
and
the
crypto
folks
and
whatnot
I
do
have
one
PR
in
that
I
put
in
the
in
the
minutes
that
if
you
know
anything
about
the
C++
crypto
land,
please
take
look
and
with
that
I
think.
Do
we
miss
anybody.
A
N
A
A
A
A
We
have
introduced
a
staging
branch
for
the
stable
release,
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
later
this
week,
although
I'm
working
to
table
it
but
we'll
get
there
and
seek
legal
advice
on
me,
but
yeah
I
would
move
the
CTC
agenda
for
that
I'm,
not
even
gonna
finish,
saying
it
and
landing
the
no
DP
for
ABI
Michael
Dawson
got
all
the
things
he
needed
out
of
the
meeting
from
that.
So
I
think
we're
done.
There
have
I,
mischaracterized
anything
or
missed
anything.
A
A
Okay,
in
that
case,
let's
move
to.
A
F
F
Kitchen
vs
sorry
access
what
the
f
okay
flag
vs
stopped
to
see
if
there
was
any
differences
and
didn't
really
come
up
with
anything,
but
I
gots
a
little
bit
out
of
my
realm,
so
I
don't
really
know
if,
if
this
is
going
to
be
something
that's
going
to
be
done,
it
still
needs
our
sign
up
in
one
way
or
other,
because
it's
undef
or
getting
something.
That's
all
I
really
have
to
say
about
it.
F
F
O
N
A
N
N
I
A
N
I
look
as
unfortunate
as
this
is
without
a
champion
amongst
the
collaborator
group.
I
just
don't
see
this
moving
forward,
otherwise
it's
she's
going
to
continue
to
be
blocked,
so
we
need
we,
probably
just
just
ping
collaborators
and
say:
is
there
anyone
here
that
is
actually
particularly
interested
in
this?
Otherwise,
it's
dead
in
the
water.
Well,.
O
O
N
O
J
N
A
Okay,
if
there's
no
objections
to
this
approach,
I
move
that
we
move
that
we
go
on
to
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
and
I'll
take
the
to-do
item
of
pinging
in
that
thread.
Unless
somebody
else
wants
to
ping
in
that
thread
to
see
if
we
can
drum
up
some
people
internal
to
the
project
who
are
who
are
I
feel
strongly
in
pot
and
positively
about
that
change.
A
A
Yes,
that
was
it
so
Michael
Rogers,
I
believe
yep.
Did
you
see
the
question
from
Federer
yep.
J
Have
access,
but
if
another
one
wanted
access,
they
could
get
it,
and
these
are
just
the
people
that
have
dinner
like
the
administrators
of
the
website
and
then
basically
found
an
internal
foundation.
Employees
have
access,
that's
about
it
and
in
the
future,
Moore
Foundation
employees
may
have
access,
but
we
wouldn't
want
to
open
it
up
to
more
people
in
there.
A
J
A
J
Here
is
that,
like
we're,
not
we're
not
arguing
about
the
usefulness
of
having
this
kind
of
data
right
like
we're
not
saying
we
shouldn't
do
this
and
we
shouldn't
try
to
understand
or
users
of
this
there's
not
value.
There
then
is
making
an
argument
that
he
doesn't
like
the
tool
that
we're
using,
but
at
the
same
time,
then,
is
not
offering
to
run
a
different
tool
and
and
basically
replace
it
himself.
So.
N
My
proposal
rich
rich,
so
wait.
We
did
give
warning
for
we'd
come
back
to
it
this
week
and
it's
come
back.
Let's
just
vote
on
it
and
move
forward.
So
we
don't
have
this
thing
hanging
around
because,
like
frankly,
I
don't
think,
there's
anyone
else
on
this
call
who
all
week's
call
that
is
opposed
to
this.
So
unless,
unless
we
have
somebody
coming
on
to
argue
the
case
here,
we
can
vote
in
reform
and
I
know
that
sounds
like
bulldozing.
But
there's
there's
been
plenty
of
time
for
this
to
resolve.
I.
A
A
Alright,
let's
do
that
then
so
I
God
one
day,
I
want
to
try
just
having
a
right
type,
their
votes
on
the
sideboard,
rather
than
saying
it
out
loud.
But
let's,
let's
just
continue
with
saying
it
out
loud
feather.
Did
you
have
something
you
want
to
say?
Oh.
F
A
D
M
J
A
A
Okay,
so,
oh
and
brian
is
abstaining.
So
the
third
item
that
which
mentioned
specifically
in
the
common
thread
was
introduced
a
staging
branch
for
stable
release,
dreams
I,
propose
that
there's
no
rush
on
this
and
we
do
table
it
a
week
because
I
think
that
the
best
case
for
conversation
would
be
to
have
at
least
both
miles
in
Jeremiah
in
the
room.
E
I
think
miles
made
this
position
on
it
pretty
clear
and
actually
like
I
before
was
not
so
I
didn't
really
care
either
way.
But
after
the
previous
release
it
was
very.
It
was
a
lot
more
difficult,
not
having
this
assay
branch
to
lay
in
PR
zone,
because
I've
already
like
built
the
binaries
and
all
of
that
and
then
something
landed
and
so
I
had
to
get
that.
Henry
new
release.
P
An
x-man,
yeah
and
I
would
say
it's
at
this
point:
I
think
everybody
who's
done
or
released.
Recently
almost
you're
a
majority
of
people
have
done
releases
every
something
have
said
that
I've
come
out
in
favor
of
this
said
it's
a
big
good
idea,
or
at
least
happen
said
absolutely
not
I
think
we
need
to
take
that
into
consideration,
and
you
know
it's
something
that
we
can
always
know.
We
can
try
it
and
if
it's
just
too
hard,
because
it's
too
much
processing
the
way,
then
we
can
always.
N
N
Actually,
quite
like
miles
as
argument
in
the
issue
in
the
meaning
issue:
thread
about
consistency,
helping
onboarding
and
keep
telling
teaching
people
how
things
work,
I
think
that's
actually
quite
a
good
argument,
but
I
grade
James
that
it.
This
is
really
up
to
people
who
are
doing
releases
and
if
there's
is
there,
you
know
the
people
who
are
currently
doing
releases
of
want
this,
then
so
be
it.
M
D
D
D
H
Have
13
ctc
members
here,
so
the
number
seven
was
based
on
me
listening,
so
maybe
we
should
revisit
that.
Maybe
none.
A
A
A
So
if
there's
no
objection,
then
let's
move:
let's
move
back
to
the.
A
Staging
branch
issue
I
believe
Jeremiah
looked
like
he
was
trying
to
amuse
himself
and
say
something
so
when
we
start
there.
F
F
F
F
A
A
G
A
A
A
If
nobody
objects
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
the
process
for
determining
supported
and
since
I
put
this
on
the
agenda,
I'll
frame
it
and
I'd
like
to
say
that
I
think
we
can
try
to
take
the
CTC
agenda
label
off.
For
now.
The
build
working
group
apparently
discussed
this
and
rod
posted
their
proposal
to
the
issue
and
I.
Think
it's
a
really
good
proposal
and
would
like
to
discuss
it
on
github.
So
does
anybody
object
to
just
removing
that
from
the.
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
Oh
and
by
the
way,
this
just
something
to
clarify
as
well.
This
is
not
just
platforms.
That's
there's
like
permutations
involved
in
this
as
well
that
we
probably
should
include
the
permutations
about
how
it's
used,
what
compilers
used,
whether
the
shared
builds,
all
those
sort
of
things
we
probably
want
to
include
in
that,
how
you
know,
but
basically
a
minimum
description
of
what
we
officially
support,
because
right
now
in
CI,
we
don't.
A
A
N
H
N
H
Essentially,
when
we
shell
out
to
command
a
CMD
in
Windows
by
default,
it
will
run
some
things
that
are
specified
in
like
a
registry
key
and
he's
proposing.
That
was
somebody.
It
felt
that
was
a
bug
and
he's
proposing
that
we,
when
we
shell
out
to
CMD,
we
don't
run
those
automatically
run,
commands.
H
N
There
was
also
a
question
about
what
other
platforms
do.
That's
a
column
raised
that
one
and
the
response
was
the
Python.
Python
doesn't
even
go
as
far
as
we
do
now.
They
just
do
a
/c
and
they
have
some
trouble
with
with
escaping
spaces.
But
that's
not
related
to
this.
The
Python
doesn't
do
this,
but
there's
no
other
responses
to
that.
My
response
is
so
I'm
happy
to
trust
windows.
N
People
like
Josh,
maybe
maybe
you,
can
go
and
find
someone
at
Microsoft
that
can
tell
us
what
you
know
if
there's
a
Microsoft
opinion
on
how
to
do
this,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
if
you
are,
if
you
have
something
in
auto
run
for
command,
then
overriding
that
and
turning
that
off
sort
of
needs
to
be
explicit.
Otherwise
it
should
run
like
that.
Just
seems
intuitively
correct.
N
Maybe
that
maybe
not,
but
you
know
it
seems,
like
you
said
that
that
you
should,
you
should
run
it,
and
if
you
want
to
override
that,
then
you
should
probably
not
use
exec.
You
could
probably
spawn
CMD.
So
no
I
don't
think
we
have
any
windows
experts
on
here
other
than
you,
Josh
and
vowel
is
really
our
remaining
windows.
Subject
matter
expert
in
that
thread
on
the
collaborators.
H
Get
abuse
undo
that
attempt
at
mean
basically
I
lean
towards
what
you
said:
rod
that
if
it's
been
registered,
for
example
through
group
policy,
then
we
shouldn't
be
the
ones
overriding
it
I
can
check
more
around
here.
If
there's
you
know
other
opinions,
that's
what
I
think
we're
going
to
find
out
also.
N
A
N
A
A
A
D
D
I
wrote
it
from
a
set
of
clips
to
javascript
and
started
documenting
it,
and
now
it
has
reached
the
stage
where
Jax
gay
was
continued
written
in
JavaScript
and
each
has
some
additional
documentation
that
holds
people
to
use
it,
and
there
helps
to
contribute
to
it.
So
I
think
that
it
is
ready
for
movin
in.
F
Note
that
Chris
did
a
good
amount
of
work
on
making
an
indexer
of
sorts
for
all
the
light
for
like
code
paths,
that
stuff
could
take
two,
it's
a
little
bit
more
detailed
than
mpm,
but
I.
Don't
think
he
ever
got
to
a
point
where
data
was
accessible
out
of
sign
like
that
I
think
he
got
it
index
in
the
database
of
sorts
or
at
least
set
stuff
up
to
do
that.
That's
just
like
an
aside,
pretty
much
it'd
be
nice
to
get
his
opinion
on
it.
I
guess.
A
You
so
is
there
is,
there
is
the
sense
of
the
of
everyone
that
we
should
move
this
to
a
vote
and
that
it's
fairly
on
controversial
or
would
that
be
rushing
things
I
just.
N
N
Okay,
I
suspect
the
ctc
probably
won't
want
to
own
this,
because,
though
there'll
be
a
limited
number
of
people
that
want
to
care
about
the
details
of
it,
so
it
probably
needs
its
own
group,
at
least
not
not
necessarily
working
group,
but
a
team.
That's
an
explicit
group
and
then
probably
after
go
in
it
to
the
readme
at
least.
I
N
I
N
That
sounds
like
a
good
plan,
actually
palm
this
off
to
the
tic
tac,
yeah
I
think
that's
absolutely
right
so
column
and
Nikita
and
others.
If
you
want
to
prepare
it
and
then
open
issue
on
tier,
see
repo.
If
you
want
help
with
what
how
to
prepare,
it,
can
I
suggest
that
you
ping
William
cab
key
because
he's
really
good
on
that
stuff.
I
A
Okay,
this
does
anybody
else
have
something
they
want
to
say
on
this
topic,
or
is
the
consensus
that
the
next
steps,
as
outlined
by
rod
and
Michael,
that
this
should
go
to
the
tsc
and
they're
a
team
should
be
added
to
the
readme
and
the
license
and
a
few
other
things.
But
does
anybody
have
anything
else
to
add
to
this
or
feel
differently.
O
O
I
am
happy
with
where
it's
going
and
I'd
say
it's
eighty
percent,
the
way
there
before
post
the
pr
I'm
going
to
keep
working
on
it
for
less
today
and
hopefully
have
it
up
by
four
morning
for
review
the
as
far
as
the
EP
itself,
it's
except
for
that
one
change
of
the
now
useless
API.
It's
pretty
much
right
on
point
with
where
development
is
going
so.
O
Yeah
yeah,
so
so
async
wrap
is
a
total
like
implementation
leak
and
so
I
I've
renamed
it
async
cooks
so
like
when
you
require
you
would
require
a
sink
hooks
instead
of
a
teasing
crap
and
then
like
the
process.
Binding
would
still
be
acing
crap
because
that's
the
C++
class
that
would
follow.
You
know
the
convention
of
everything
else,
but
then
the
actual
require
the
actual
API
name
would
be
a
sink
events.
I
have
already
squatted
the
MPN
module
for
that.
So
there's
there
won't
be
any
conflicts.
F
I'm,
not
a
hundred
percent,
so
just
just
to
keep
people
in
the
loop.
Since
we
did
sign
up
on
a
previous
version
of
this
EP.
There
have
been
a
couple
of
minor
things
that
are
there
similar
to
that.
So
free
and
posts
are
now
called
before
and
after
so
before
and
after
a
callback
is
called
and
also
there
are
api's
for
bettors,
so
that
pooling
libraries
and
stuff
like
I,
think
it's
like
red
s
and
stuff
can
use
it.
F
N
Think
my
forward
on
this
one
is
actually
to
really
hate
saying
this,
but
to
defer
it
again
for
next
week
and
then
next
week
have
a
clearly
outlined
thing
that
we
are
voting
on
in
the
meeting
issue.
So
I
know
most
most
of
this
is
in
the
EP
pull
request,
but
I
doubt
that
everyone's
seen
it
so,
let's,
let's
come
up
with
a
clear
voting
statement
for
next
week,
so
that
we
can
move
forward,
emerged
that
or
not
okay,.
O
Up
and
instead
of
branch
on
my
repo
but
I
haven't
turned
into
a
pull
request.
It's
almost
pull
request
ready,
but
it
isn't
run
a
couple.
It's
look
that
this
is
something
that,
unfortunately,
cannot
be
done
in
pieces.
It's
kind
of
an
all-or-nothing
thing
and
it's
almost
all
they're,
just
a
couple
important
bits
or
another
do.
H
Now
the
only
question
I
have
is
their
dash
in
the
hooks.
Not
a
very
big
deal.
Don't
worry
about
it.
No.
A
O
A
O
A
Ok
cool,
so
so
we
have
a
clear
next
step
for
trevor.
Is
there
anything
else
we
need
to
talk
about
on
this
this
week,
or
should
we
just
prepare
to
vote
on
a
clear
statement
next
week.
O
Yeah,
just
hopefully,
everybody
will
have
a
chance
to
FN
at
the
least
review
the
EP,
since
at
that
point
the
implementation
will
be
there.
The
EP
will
perfectly
reflect
the
implementation
and
not
some
you
know
theoretical
thing.
So
if
you
don't
have
time
to
review
the
code,
hopefully
you
at
least
have
time
to
look
over
the
EP,
so
that
yeah,
you
can
understand
what
wait
you're
rotating
them.
H
P
O
A
A
Right
cool,
then,
unless
there
are
any
objections,
I
wait,
we
have
to
do
QA,
don't
we
hey
Jeremiah?
Are
there
any
questions.