►
From YouTube: Node.js Release Working Group Meeting
Description
A
B
A
C
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
C
I
could
definitely
do
it.
No
a
chicken
on
soybeans,
but
that's
actually
two
weeks
then
so
we
might
so
the
next
one
is
only
for
one
week
so
yesterday,
but
then
afterwards
it's
two
weeks.
A
A
C
A
I'll
go
through
and
change
the
dates
wrapped
in
bringing
up
my
calendar
now
and
then
probably
bump
the
following.
The
release
and
I'll
add
a
couple
more
entries
every
two
weeks
from
then
because
I
think
it's
fine,
because
if
we
break
like
accidentally
break
a
release
or
a
big
bug
comes
up,
then
then
that
gives
us
the
week
in
between
to
do
another
release
for
everything
rather
than
doing
two
releases
in
a
week.
If
something
breaks,
yeah.
A
A
A
A
D
A
A
C
C
C
Okay,
so
the
first
one
is
just
how
we
are
currently
doing
releases
pretty
much
and
I
also
had
hope
that
we
all
filled
it
out
a
little
bit
more.
This
is
just
rough
saying
how
it
for
me
is
so
we
have
the
Alta
active
LTS,
one
thing
where
my
net
eats
Green,
Mountains
and
normally
to
perhaps
releases
in
between.
A
A
C
And
and
then
we
have
maintenance
LTS
one
cache
release
as
far
as
you
know,
and
security
releases
afterwards,
like
each
film,
so
many
months,
I,
don't
know
anymore
and
for
how
long
I
don't
know
that
anymore
I
have
to
work
yeah.
What
we
do
is
to
never
release
a
rebase
on
the
actual
release,
but
only
on
the
staging
Browns
for
that,
so
that
release
branch
is
always
a
source
of
truce,
and
it's
a
continuing
saying
instead
of
having
only
the
tack,
that's
a
great
way.
D
C
Doing
it
there's
some
concerns
from
our
side.
As
far
as
I
know
it's.
The
current
release
process
is
especially
for
LTS
difficult
to
handle
at
times,
because
we
always
have
to
review
every
commit
and
we
have
to
make
sure
and
we
beg
for
them
properly
and
it's
a
very,
very
time-consuming
and
sometimes
also
difficult,
not
to
break
something.
A
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
Think
that's
six
months.
Normally
so
six
months,
plus
and
and
so
we
have
certain
months
in
the
in
1200
three-year
as
three
years
wait.
18
well
yeah.
A
C
C
A
C
C
Okay
and
then
the
next
one
proposal
to
change
the
time,
that's
from
from
my
else,
the
proposal
and
when
he
suggested
to
switch
to
timeframes
for
active
LTS
and
maintenance
LTS.
The
reason
is
pretty
much
the
concerns
of
the
first
one
to
address
that
by
having
to
beg
for
it
less
commits
after
a
while,
because
it
became
become
so
difficult
to
actually
do
that.
A
C
We
could
probably
also
like
that,
on
the
top
like
in
in
the
current
release
process
that
we
mainly
backward
things
after
a
while
on
specific
requests
and
not
anymore
in
general
fashion.
A
Yeah,
so
yeah
I
think
that's
one
benefit
of
it,
because
we're
kind
of
already
doing
this
anyway,
we're
not
back
porting
everything
and
if
that's,
what
we
deem
actives
LTS
to
mean
is
back
holding
all
of
the
miners
and
patches
that
land
on
the
current
release
line,
then
we're
not
actually
into
that
for
the
full
18
months.
No
fact
I
think
it's
like
fourteen
fifteen
hundred
commits
still
on
no
ten
and
we're
only
well
we're
less
than
a
year
into
its
active
yeah.
C
A
A
C
A
A
C
We
all
hope
that
it
soon
would
and
if
we
stopped
maintaining
it
at
all
and
to
drop
support
for
it
and
because
then
people
could
move
on
to
aid
and
and
therefore
just
switching
the
time
around
might
actually
worsen
that
that
people
might
sooner
have
the
feeling.
Okay,
people
should
actually
switch
to
the
next
newer
version.
That
might
be
a
good
and
a
bad
thing
at
the
same
time.
Maybe
because
some
people
might
actually
indeed
switch
to
the
newer
version
due
to
that
reason
yeah.
A
I've
had
discussions
and
I
think
in
the
release
meetings
before
I
think
we
had
and
people
see
both
sides.
One
side
is
if
you
only
put
two
new
features
into
the
new
releases
and
not
into
the
really
old
ones
that
were
about
to
go
end
of
life
or
in
maintenance,
then
that's
an
incentive
for
people
to
move
up
and
use
two
new
features,
but
then
it
also
harms
my
aggression
because.
A
C
Case
we
would
have
to
okay.
C
C
C
D
C
B
C
A
This
is
a
difference
between
LTS,
so
based
on.
How
is
is
kind
of
happened
in
the
past.
He
voided
doing
too
many
minors.
So
we
purposely
say
we
will
do
one
patch
release
another
patch
release
and
then
every
third
release
will
be
a
minor,
and
this
means
that
the
minors
come
in
after
a
load
of
patches
out
of
order.
A
C
B
A
A
B
C
A
C
Is
hopefully
less
error-prone
and
it's
easier
to
beg
for
more
sings
by
doing
that?
It's
applause
for
us
how
it's
done
is
outlined
in
reference,
pull
requests
and
it
would
actually
mainly
benefit
the
LTS
releases,
not
the
current
ones,
because
in
the
current
we
already
do
only
minors
and
when
we
stay
when
we
always
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
out
of
order
commits
that's
a
very
important
part
out
of
my
perspective
that
we
always
stick
to
the
correct
order.
C
Then
there
are
almost
no
conflicts
or
at
least
very
seldom
and-
and
that
makes
it
much
more
easy
when
we
have
a
zember
patch
release
in
between
or
multiple.
The
problem,
then,
is
to
actually
get
all
December
minors
from
in
between
and
if
we
would
do
a
merge
afterwards,
we
would
have
conflicts.
That
would
only
happen.
Did
you
having
those
patch
commits
that
were
landed
after
zember
minor
in
between?
B
C
A
A
A
C
A
B
B
C
B
C
B
B
A
C
Yeah
I,
don't
like
I,
don't
fear
updating
forwards
in
the
way.
That's
that's
rebase
part.
You
know
so.
I
haven't
really
feared
that
there
is
any
problem
in
that,
because
that
would
indicate
that
something
wrong
is
going
on
master
as
well
or
or
at
least
without
December
major
commit
in
between
that
something
would
be
wrong,
so
we
would
have
a
faulty
back
part.
A
C
Wisdom
urge
dancing,
we
could
try
that,
and
so
we
should
have
them.
Maybe
as
like
three
point,
three
or
a
three
point,
four,
and
actually
with
me
cuz
of
consoles
three
points
me
that
we
try
to
not
rebase
but
instead
merge.
If
that
which
solve
our
problem
as
well.
A
A
C
A
C
A
Okay,
the
last
one
is
proposal
to
always
creates
m4
mine
rule
releases.
I,
guess
I
think
this
might
been
when
I
raced
at
the
moment,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
in
OTS,
and
we
say
one
cent
for
miner
per
quarter
and
as
a
result,
we
end
up
doing
patch
patch
miner
patch
patch
minor,
which
means
things
will
inevitably
end
up
out
of
order.
A
I,
don't
see
an
issue
myself
with
doing
regular,
my
and
in
fact,
while
it's
inactive
I,
think
it
makes
sense
to
do
regular
miners,
because
then
we
pulled
up
back
to
features
and
the
same
order
and
people
can
I
think
there's
an
expectation
when
something's
in
LTS
active
that
everything's
gonna
be
pulled
back
in
making
people
wait
for
some
for
minors
without
any
particular
reason
doesn't
seem
to
make
sense.
There
are.
There
is
the
other
side
where
there's
concern
from
enterprises.
B
D
A
A
B
A
B
Yeah
I'd
really
like
to
have
miles
talk
about
that
because
he
mentioned
managed
run
times
and
that's
something
special,
because
when
you
use
a
managed
runtime,
you
cannot
decide.
If
you
are
great
or
not
it's
it's
done
for
you
and
maybe
at
Google
clouds.
They.
They
are
afraid
to
to
look
great
when
it's
a
minor.
C
Even
not
even
say
less
but
and
the
least
from
all
proposals,
this
is
going
to
solve
our
out
of
order
and
also
I.
A
A
C
C
C
A
C
We
land
a
commit
and
when,
when
we
backward
something,
we
normally
take
the
current
version,
yeah
the
code
or
whatever
it
is
instead
of
the
actual
thing
at
that
point
of
time
that
conflicted-
and
that
means
there
might
have
been
a
patch
in
between
or
commit
in,
between
that
we
then
backwards
as
well
at
that
moment
and
and
things
become
confusing,
and
we
sometimes
even
make
more
mistakes
due
to
that.
So.