►
Description
A
B
Hi
yeah,
basically
just
the
usual
looking
at
issues
and
yours
yeah,
that's
it
for
me
and
next
one
we
Bradley,
oh.
C
E
F
I've
been
working
on
the
getting
v6
Christ,
explain:
Oh
up
the
door
is
a
bunch
of
conflicts
that
I
haven't
made
too
much
progress
on
it.
Yet
I'm.
Also
some
miscellaneous
issue
and
PR
review.
F
G
H
Spent
some
time
investigating
in
submitting
some
TRS
landing
them
to
movie
acts
toward
screen
and
SB
I.
Am
I
working
on
migrating
our
PPC
machines
to
the
new
set
working
on
adding
linux,
one
to
the
nightly
build
move
the
apt,
a
bi-stable
work
from
private
repo
in
two
repos
under
nodejs,
and
still
some
work
on
my
presentations
for
note,
interactive
EU
next
is
Julian
and.
K
Everyone,
let's
see
so
as
Ollie
mentioned,
the
v8
team
is
heads
down
working
on
the
ignition
interpreter,
which
initially
will
is
mainly
in
place
to
deliver
a
memory
improvements,
but
with
the
long
run,
should
should
help
with
startup
as
well
and
simplifying
our
architecture
and
the
dev
tools.
Team
is
as
working
hard
on
the
v8
inspector
migration
still
and
getting
closer
to
landing
it
in
a
v8,
proper
and
next
step
is
Steven.
Loomis.
L
Okay,
so
not
a
lot
just
trying
to
keep
an
eye
on
on
the
issues
and
pork
rice
just
responded
to
another
one
that
I
was
able
to
close
with.
That
was
just
a
data
issue,
8433
okay,
so
who
is
next
so
I'm?
Just
loading
the
page
miles.
M
Hello,
everyone
too,
so
I'm,
just
catching
up
back
from
vacation
in
auditing,
commits
for
four
point
x,
starting
to
get
stuff
back
into
staging
working
on
modifying
the
output
of
the
test
runner
right
now
we
only
have
part
of
the
output
in
yeah
mallesh
and
some
of
its
and
comments,
and
this
is
blocking
the
adoption
of
a
new
CI
job
that
we
talked
about
for
j
unit
instead
of
tap
preparing
for
interactive
EU
and
no
that's
going
to
where
I'm
at
right.
Now.
Next
up,
we
have
Trevor.
N
O
A
It
does
and
moving
into
the
meeting
proper.
The
first
item
is
actually
it's.
The
determining
support
of
build
platforms
and
I've
suggested
that
we
skip
this
one.
This
week
the
build
working
group
has
a
meeting
only
27th.
So
it's
a
couple
of
meetings
for
us
from
now,
so
we've
removed
the
ctc
generated
from
this
issue
and
it'll
come
back
when
the
bill
working
group,
as
has
completed
something
that's
happy
with.
A
So
we
have
then
two
items
on
the
agenda
which
I'll
update.
Oh
that's
already
been
done
so
previous
meeting
come
on
you're,
rich
I
presume
that
was
you
done
doing
that
previous
meeting.
We
looked
at
the
build
platforms
which
just
I
just
mentioned
the
child
process
stuff
for
auto
run,
which
is
gone
back
to
github,
and
but
there
was
a
negativity
about
that.
One
was
the
end
on
that
one.
It's.
G
A
A
Okay,
there's
some
good
commenting
there,
I'm
duplicate,
it
exists,
think
that
was
stuff
there
for
the
the
sink.
All
of
that,
but
nobody
was
going
to
technology
really
wanted
to
champion
that
one
negativity
amongst
the
ctc
group,
but
again,
if
there's
anybody
here
in
New
that
wasn't
in
that
discussion,
that
really
feels
strongly
that
we
should
have
an
existing
or
something
similar.
Please
go
into
that
issue.
It
needs
a
champion
because
we
don't
have
one,
except
for
external
people,
Google
Google,
Analytics
tracking.
A
J
A
Opening
an
issue
on
the
tsc
to
make
sure
that
that's
okay
to
move
forward
with
and,
lastly,
a
synchro,
probably
API
proposal-
that's
back
again
for
voting
this
week,
but
we'll
get
there
in
a
minute.
So
just
two
items
on
the
agenda.
The
first
one
is
issue
number
three,
five,
nine
five,
which
is
this
failure
from
the
upgrade
two
of
the
eight
in
version,
6.5
points0,
know
how
many
proxies
flag
so
who
put
this
on
the
agenda?
Who
wants
to
lead
this
one.
B
Yeah
I
don't
know
who
had
to
look
at
this
issue.
I
think
a
lot
of
us
here
did
but
like
I
will
just
ask:
does
anybody
really
have
have
concrete
points
why
we
shouldn't
do
that?
Why
we
shouldn't
support
just
no
upping
these
flags
and
saying
yeah,
we
ignored
them,
but
at
least
that
doesn't
break
anybody's
code.
O
F
J
N
J
I
J
J
We
have
the
long-standing
policy
that
the
do
not
change,
be
a
behavior
and-
and
my
opinion
is
that
these
no
up
on
me
flags
I
mean
we
should
add
the
no
ops
back,
because
we
aren't
really
changing
behavior
and
we
are
avoiding
some
hardship
in
the
ecosystem.
So
so
that's
why
I'm
supportive
of
adding
bad
back
these
knobs,
but
for
the
remaining
flags
that
actually
are
Viet
behavior
I.
I
do
not
think
we
should
change
your
default
policy
of
not
changing
that
behavior.
What.
J
Well
it
so
even
the
army
sides,
you
can
argue
that
I
think
it's
fair
game,
that
the
flag
got
a
MOOC
but
I.
Think
enough.
People
use
army
flags
and
it
will
be
a
very
simple
thing
to
do,
but
strong
mode
I
think
you
re
off
the
radar
if
using
strong
mode
and
expecting
that
will
work
even
within
a
patch
level.
K
M
J
J
A
Right
yeah,
every
week
we
can
adopt
a
new
policy
here.
If
you
want,
which
is
like
we
don't
have
to
be
stick
to
the
existing
policy.
If
we
think
is
a
better
option,
which
is
maybe
to
say
that
when
we
upgrade
v8,
there
are
some
flags
which
may
disappear
or
change,
and
you
have
to
do
feature
detection
somehow
on
that.
If
you
really
care
about
those
flags,
yeah.
B
N
N
B
I
N
D
F
D
A
A
B
J
A
Well,
that's
so
that
let's
do
this
in
open
that
PR
and
move
discussions
to
that
new
PR
and
if
those
people
with
negatives,
how
can
expand
on
their
their
negatives
in
there,
then
that's
fine.
We
can
have
discussion
there,
otherwise,
maybe
it'll
get
through
and
then
we'll
keep
it
on
the
agenda
for
next
week
and
if
it
needs
to
be
discussed
we'll
do
that.
There.
A
Work
for
me,
hi,
okay,
moving
on
then
I
think
rep
public
IP,
a
proposal
Trevor.
Let's
get
this
closed
out
sometime,
how
we
going.
N
The
EP
I'd
say,
after
all,
the
implementation
I've
gone
through
I'd,
say
the
EP
is
a
near
one
hundred
percent
ready.
The
only
thing
I
could
see
conceivably
changing
slightly
is
the
native
c++
and
better
API,
but
after
doing
a
crap
ton
of
implementation
and
testing
and
implementation
is
down
to
where
it
needs
to
be
in
order
to
achieve
all
the
functionality
and
performance
goals
that
were
that
were
set
for
it
and
I'm
really
close
to
finishing
up
a
full
implementation
for
it,
which
I
will
PR
in
a
day
or
two.
A
N
F
Have
one
question
I'm
just
reading
the
update
and
better
mpio
you
haven't
had
time
to
make
it
comment
on
me
that
I
could
conceivably
see
and
that's
it
when
this
basic
event
store
object
that
you
pass
around
with
the
embedded
p.
I
would
it
be
better
to
just
attach
the
event
ID
on
it.
So
you
just
need
to
polish.
N
J
N
F
Case
won't
want
one
question
if
you
call
one
second,
if
you
call
what's
the
what's
the
method
emit
in
it
or
maybe
kollam.
N
It
will
okay,
because
that,
because
there
is
the
API
of
current
ID,
which
allows
you
to
grab
the
current
execution
ID,
they
sink
execution
ID
at
any,
given
point
in
your
application,
so
it'll
eat.
It
will
need
to
clear
out
all
existing
hooks
say.
For
example,
you
have
an
async
call
within
an
async
college
happens
on
occasion.
You
need
to
be
able
to
throw
all
existing
hooks
to
be
executed
on
to
a
stack,
clear
it
and
then
throw
the
new
ID
on
there.
You.
N
A
A
Everyone
should
read
it
so
that
when
we
vote
on
you,
you're
actually
voting
on
something
you've
read
and
the
second
money
is
to
that.
We
should
have
a
full
requesting
to
note
call
sometime
in
the
next
few
days
that
possibly
won't
come
back
on
to
this
meeting,
but
it'll
be
something
to
keep
an
eye
on.
Don't.
N
A
N
A
N
K
Just
wanted
to
underscore
something
which
I
think
all
I
mentioned
on
the
thread,
which
was
that
the
VA
team
is
definitely
interested
and
working
on
this,
and
if
the
issue
isn't
going
anywhere,
it's
it's
not
not
for
a
lack
of
conversations
happening
elsewhere
enough
thread
and-
and
it
looks
like
a
sink-
oh
wait-
we'll
definitely
not
make
the
cut
for
47
point
X
so,
unfortunately,
which
is
unfortunate
on
the
one
hand,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
it
gives
us
a
little
bit
more
time
to
work
through
the
right
thing
here.
That's.
A
Okay,
moving
on
to
QA
on
public
channels,
so
if
you're
listening
to
the
live
stream
and
you've
got
a
question
or
a
comment,
do
you'd
like
to
feed
into
this
meeting,
please
drop
it
in
the
YouTube
comments
or
in
IRC
in
the
node
dev
channel
or
even
in
the
issue
thread
for
this
meeting.
So
we'll
give
it
a
couple
of
minutes.
While
we
wait
for
people
to
catch
up
on
this
dream,.
A
A
A
A
There's
an
issue.
The
issue
number
56
in
the
benchmarking,
repo
soils
navigate
build
rebuild
working
groups
in
the
twentieth
and
we
should
have
the
the
platforms
thing
by
then
to
come
back
to
the
CTC
meeting
that
week.
I
would
hope
and
that's
all
the
meetings
we
have
listed
so
is
there
anything
else
anyone
would
like
to
drop
in
this
public
section.
I.
C
Can
drop
something?
There
were
several
concerns
about
the
rewritten,
EP
four
modules
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate:
we
haven't
merged
that
PR
yet
and
you're
still
free
to
discuss
things.
If
you
want
to
ask
questions
or
have
concerns,
you
can
put
it
in
github,
publicly
or
even
emailed
me
privately
and
I'll
try
to
route
the
questions
as
best
I
can
as
Bradley
father's,
by
the
way.
A
So
I've
been
getting
a
lot
of
questions
about
modules.
It
seems
that
people
are
still
extremely
interested
in
it
and
having
difficulty
grok
in
the
details,
there's
even
questions
that
came
up
during
QA
during
the
no
foundation
board
meeting
about
modules.
So,
if
you're
listening
to
this-
and
you
have
questions
that
I
encourage
you
to
get
in
touch
with
Bradley
he's
very
interested
in
having
discussions
with
people
that
have
concerns
or
questions.