►
From YouTube: Node.js Release Working Group Meeting - March 14 2019
Description
B
C
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
Think,
like
I
mean
we
as
I
remember,
we
were
pushing
for
eight
like
we
definitely
want
the
changes
back
ported
to
eight
six
I'm
trying
to
remember,
like
this
I
think
this
issue
was
opened
back
in
September
right,
so
in
September,
when
you
know
there
was
eight
months
left,
it
made
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
now
that
there's
a
couple
months,
less
left
I'm,
not
sure
it's
as
important,
so
I
think
it
was.
You
know
it
was
I.
A
Think
the
the
you
know
when
I
looked
I
did
look
at
the
comments
recently,
because
because
miles
was,
you
know
raising
some
concerns
in
terms
of
what
was
in
sex
and
so
forth,
and
in
this
one
in
particular,
was
kind
of
like.
If
we're
doing
a
release
it
would
be
good
to
get
in,
but
don't
do
a
release
just
for
it
right.
Okay,.
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
Okay
and
next
on
the
list
is
preparation,
Sunday
12:00,
so
don't
know
if
everyone's
seen
this
issue,
I've
kind
of
been
working
from
James
snails
guides
and
following
fits
like
reading,
test
codes,
etc,
and
one
thing
I
think
came
up
on
a
build
work
that
cool
this
and
the
build
related
updates.
We
need
to
do
the
note
twelve
Michael.
Do
you
have
any
information
I
think
it
was
discussed
on
the
TSC
meeting
it
well.
A
Well
yeah,
so
we've
put
a
proposal
together
in
terms
of
platforms
and
so
forth
in
terms
of
yeah.
The
release
on
the
April
23rd
I
mean
I,
don't
know
that
a
week
one
way
or
the
other
is
gonna,
make
a
huge
difference,
start
creating
our
C's
one
week
from
verse.
Twenty
third
and
release
yeah
I
think
we
said
it
for
the
23rd
and
if
there's
challenges
and
getting
things
updated
and
time
for
that,
then
we
can
maybe
adjust.
B
A
Those
things
would
be
part
of
the
move
to
move
up
to
newer
machines
like
we
first
have
to
install
the
newer
compilers,
then
we
can
start
switching
over
that.
So
I
think
you
know.
As
soon
as
we
have
an
updated
compiler
on
the
platform,
we
would
update
the
selector
scripts
and
the
and
select
compilers
to
do
the
right
thing
for
master
and
then
you'll
just
get
that
by
default
in
12,
okay,.
C
So
I'm
just
preparing
1112,
0
or
already
prepared
it
there
is.
There
were
a
few
PRS
which
I
had
to
pull
out
again
and
in
one,
for
example,
was
my
crypto
PR
that
did
seem
to
break
something.
That
was
not
obvious
immediately
and
it's
going
to
be
reverted.
Then
there
was
a
breaking
change
in
the
streams
API
which
I
had
to
back
out
again
and
now.
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
Sitchin
looks
relatively
fine,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
like.
Sharia
was
definitely
they
released
a
test
library
which
has
a
test
failure.
So
that's
obvious
and
fast.
If
I
dough
has
two
failures
which
I'm
just
trying
to
verify
canned
Wis
pasta,
fine,
but
it
does
not
look
like
it's
related
to
the
built
out
of
my
perspective
and
all
letters
are
just
some
no
instruments.
I.
B
C
C
C
That's
why
I
just
want
to
check
back
with
them
real,
quick
I'm
just
about
to
open
an
issue
there,
and
normally
people
from
FASTA
fire
relative
few
eager
on
dealing
with
things
yeah,
so
I'm
just
going
to
pull
the
one
more
PR
about
to
open
SSL
check
if
it
them
bills
and
a
check
was
FASTA
file.
Wise
I,
don't
have
anything
blocking
on
what
I
see
in
this
case
or
this
release,
and
would
be
great
if
you
could
have
another
look.
Also,
as
a
citizen
always
a
bit
to
look
at
the
results.
B
C
B
B
C
B
Have
a
little
bit
of
concern
because,
when
it
releases
in
its
I'll
see
things
at
least
growth,
yes,
and
if
either
people
who
don't
know
that
the
release
is
in
arson,
face
land
loads
of
myths.
We
can
bring
base.
But
it
might
just
make
our
rebasing
a
bit
more
confusing
or
a
bit
more
printing
era.
If
people
have
land
and
stuff
that
we
didn't
find
it
with
the
perilla
leaves.
B
B
C
Or
like
a
while
ago,
I
proposed
to
actually
also
have
to
stating
branches
for
each
release,
line,
one
for
a
pet
releases
and
one
for
a
minor
and
to
actually
be
able
to
immediately
pull
in
each
backward
PR,
because
then
we
and
know
okay.
This
is
a
defense
release
and
that's
fine.
We
can
just
work
on
that
and
that
the
miners
are
landing
as
well.
So
I
would
actually
like
to
to
implement
that
if
we
just
go
ahead
and
split.
B
C
C
Guess
actually
less
than
the
end,
because
if
we
lend
him
directly
but
for
the
back
parts,
it
would
still
be
as
much
like
they
would
probably
have
to
rebase,
often
anyway
like
if
you
have
multiple
backwards,
that
all
conflict
in
a
way.
It
was
each
other
or
attach
the
same
code.
And
then
one
is
backported,
then
the
other
back
port
would
have
to
rebase.
On
top
of
that,
one.
A
B
C
A
B
A
C
And
I've
just
done
that,
for
example,
with
this
release
proposal
and
also
was
the
last
one
like
was
this
one?
There
were
at
least
three
PRS
as
it
seems
that
officially
looked
fine
in
the
beginning,
but
then,
after
a
couple
of
days
someone
was
like
oh
wait.
This
is
actually
some
breaking
something
in
very
supple
and
then
that's
why
we
that's
why
I
had
to
pick
it
out
in.
B
C
Long
term
goal
would
definitely
to
automatically
Lansing's,
but
he
still
I,
guess,
there's
a
long
term
perspective.
Sadly,
but
I
believe
the
first
step
would
be
to
indeed
just
start
with
these
branches
right
away,
and
then
we
can
immediately
land
them
when
the
release
team
in
like
get
looking
good
for
one
of
the
PRS,
and
so
they
can
land
on
the
release,
staging
branch
and
like
for
the
right
one,
the
paps
release
and
minor
release.
C
Obviously
it's
a
little
bit
of
extra
work
in
this
case,
but
we
can
probably
improve
our
tooling
as
well
to
try
to
like
I
would
like
to
have
the
tooling
to
first
land,
all
the
minor.
Yes,
that's
right
and
and
then
big
ports,
the
PR
as
well
to
the
past
one,
and
hopefully
there
is
no
conflict
in
between
because
obvious
that
could
happen.
More
conflicts
in
the
patch
release
line.
Then
in
there
is
ember
minor,
really
sad,
because
we
it's
it's
like
whistles
ember
majors.
You
know
there
is
a
PR
just
missing
in
between.
B
There's
some
anything
that
courts
don't
have
many
I've
come
to
back
call
yards
that
have
terror
abuse
and
sometimes,
for
example,
their
silent
payment.
That's
it
necessarily
tit,
so
I
don't
feel
like
they
have
the
context
of
the
actual
area
of
code
to.
If
that
this
looks
good
for
no
ten.
So
if
we
have
a
requirement
that
there's
at
least
a
review
on
the
back.
C
And
that's
a
pretty
good
point
of
my
perspective.
I've
seen
that
as
well.
I
personally
would
suggest
in
that
case
like
either
you
feel
comfortable,
that
it
does
the
same.
What
I
normally
do
is
like
I,
compare
the
original
PR
and
compared
with
the
new
PR
and
see
it
it.
If
you
look
at
the
diff
and
then
I
just
like,
if
that
seems
pretty
clear
like
because
normally
they're
the
actual
conflict
is
minor,
then
you
normally
are
able
to
tell
okay.
That's.
It
looks
right.
No,
no!
C
B
A
C
In
a
way,
I
guess
it
is
mainly
about
menacingly
and
passing
the
tests
like
when
I
am
backwards
things
or
when
I
prepare
release
line
and
landing
more
PRS
on
the
staging
branches.
I
normally
try
to
fix
minor
issues,
minor
conflicts
right
away.
So
in
this
case
it's
like
my
responsibility
in
a
way
to
actually
do
the
resolved
conflict
properly
and
that's
when
I
decided.
Okay,
do
I
feel
comfortable
with
this
one
or
do
I
say-
and
this
is
too
complicated-
I'm
not
able
to
resolve
this
right
away.
B
That'd
be
good
to
see
that
and
process
written
down
and
looking
kind
of
start
liking
wanting
for
them.
Yeah
I
was
hoping
that
and
I
don't
know
how
many
people
are
planning
to
attend
a
Berlin
collaborator
summit,
and
if
we
have
a
session
that
would
look
at
automation
in
the
release
team
and
the
releasing
of
generally
made
me
sync
up
with
Joey
and
get
note
landed,
maybe
leverage
some
of
the
work
she's
done
exact
and
make
it
work
for
us.
B
C
C
Something
else
that
I
mean,
while
until
it
gives
me
a
result,
I,
don't
know
why
and
Michael
and
me
we
did
the
same
thing
and
like
right
next
to
each
other
to
verify
everything.
I'm
doing
is
identical
and
yeah.
Yes,
response
the
significantly
faster
I,
don't
know,
I
believe
it
has
something
to
do
with
the
branches
and
internals
out
tool.
C
D
D
Which
is
also
problematic
and
I've.
Actually,
because
of
that,
like
because
I've
also
tried
to
use
this
and
hit
that
myself
I've
poked
around
a
little
bit
internally
and
I.
Think
they're,
like
might
be
a
way
to
rewrite
it
a
little
bit
so
that
it
stops
doing
that
which
I'm
happy
to
try
to
look
into
a
little
more.
So.
C
C
D
B
Okay
last
thing
on
the
agenda
was
the
key
to
release
blood
and
I.
Can
you
just
write
a
draft
plan
kind
of
following
the
one
that
miles
wrote
the
key
one
and
I've
gone
for
an
hour,
see
I'm
the
first
Tuesday
of
each
month,
then
release
and
on
the
third,
and
we
can
meet
that
if
you
like
I've
just
that
button,
there
is
a
release
plan.
We've
got
time
to
read,
it
I
think
we're
still
sticking
to
one
semver
minor
per
quarter.
C
A
C
A
We
haven't
basically
excluded
December
minors,
which
are
new
features,
but
you
know
we
were
we
don't
do
them
as
often,
and
you
know
we
they
won't
they
don't
you
know
versus
current,
where
they
pretty
much
get.
You
know
backported
automatically
there.
We
should
be
reviewing
the
list
in
tan
and
saying:
do
these
ones
make
sense?
Are
they
too
risky
or
not
risky?
You
know
and
making
sure
that
what
does
go
in
is
isn't
gonna
affect
that
expectation
of
higher
stability.
B
C
I
believe,
especially
for
the
like
the
way
you
deal
with
the
these
PR
know,
with
these
releases
and
yes,
a
release
line
that
would
especially
help
there,
because
you
have
multiple
patch
releases
and
then
you
have
to
queue
up
to
minors
in
between,
and
then
you
have
more
conflicts
or,
in
the
end,
actually
less
things.
Land
yeah.
B
B
D
Sorry,
it's
like
it's
kind
of
like
it's
kind
of
a
nebulous
process
in
the
sense
that,
like
you,
kind
of
have
to
develop
an
intuition
for
it.
So,
like
you,
look
at
something
and
you
kind
of
like,
would
look
at
the
original
PR
and
see
if
there's
any
debate
on
that,
because
if
there's
some
kind
of
debate
on
that,
you
might
want
to
play
the
original
author
and
see
what
their
opinions
are.
D
B
A
D
B
C
Mean
we
do
have
the
time
delay
was
the
LTS
release,
vines
right?
We
have
I,
believe
no
PR
is
allowed
to
land
if
it
is
not
in
a
release
for
two
weeks,
a
song
like
that?
Yes,
so
that's
already
a
pretty
good
protection
out
of
my
perspective,
because
normally
we
like,
for
example,
it
was
the
11.11
release
we
broke
jest
and
I
took
I.