►
From YouTube: Node.js Technical Steering Committee meeting
Description
A
B
A
A
First,
looking
to
close
the
vote
two
weeks
after
that-
and
you
know
that
gives
us-
you
know
a
little
extra
time
if
we
need
to
give
people
more
time
to
vote
before
the
end
of
May,
so
I
just
wanted
to
give
that
as
an
announcement
see
if
that
sounds
reasonable
to
everybody
or
not,.
A
A
No
okay!
So
let's
move
on
to
what
we
have
in
our
agenda,
so
we
have
two
issues:
I
think
which
are
related
and
possibly
worth
treating
together.
One
is
nineteen
eight
to
seven,
which
is
add,
documentation
on
porting
from
buffer
argue
such
and
then
the
one
that's
sort
of
driving.
That
I
believe
is
the
tracking
issue
for
runtime
deprecation,
a
buffer
constructor
in
1907,
nine,
so
I,
don't
know
if
any
of
the
people
are
here
today
have
a
good
update
on
those
two
or
want
to
lead
the
discussion
for
I
guess
at
least
1987.
B
So
that
was
put
on
there
by
Nikita
and
he's
not
here
this
week,
so
unless
somebody
else
knows
how
to
frame
this
and
push
a
forward.
I
suspect
that
we
may
want
to
talk
about
this
in
the
issue
tracker.
So
if
it
doesn't
look
anybody
from
the
TSC
except
for
Matteo
and
the
key
to
have
weighed
in
on
the
issue
yet-
and
it's
been
open
for
a
week
right
so.
B
Yeah
so
I
yeah,
so
on
the
first
checkbox
the
drafting,
the
concise
statement
as
to
why
we're
doing
this
I
came
up
with
a
stub
of
a
FAQ
document,
and
someone
pointed
out
that
Ana
had
already
written
up
considerably
more
detailed
one,
it's
still
incomplete,
but
but
a
lot
more
of
them
way
more
than
what
I
wrote.
So
it's
on
my
to-do
list
to
sort
of
edit
put
things
together,
etc,
etc.
But
if
other
people,
you
know
this
went
out
privately
to
the
TSC
mailing
list.
B
If
other
people
on
TS
c
want
to
edit
or
offer
material,
it
would
be
really
helpful.
I
I
mean
I
think
we
really
need
to
be
able
to
articulate.
Why
we're
doing
this.
If,
if
you,
we
need
to
be
able
to
do
that
or
else
not
do
it,
but
since
we've
decided
to
do
it,
we
need
to
be
able
to
clearly
and
concisely
articulate
why
so
that's
moving
forward
slower
than
I
would
like.
But
if
anybody
wants
to
pitch
in
and
help
that'd
be
awesome
landing
the
runtime
deprecation
unmastered
that
happened.
B
B
Documentation,
I'm
porting
from
buffer
argues
yeah,
so
that
would
be
they'll
be
an
upgrade
guide,
so
so
yeah
Nikita
and
Anna
Express
once
do
parts
of
it.
Michael
saw
so
composed
upgrade
guides
in
the
first
place,
looks
like
mateo
has
weighed
in
but
yeah.
That
document
needs
to
be
written
yeah
and
then
the
rest.
The
items
we
can
probably
punt
to
next
week,
but
we'll
need
Nikita
for
the
to
talk
about
identifying
important
public
modules
that
need
patches
and
submitting
those
patches.
B
That's
that's
underway,
but
I
don't
have
a
good
idea
and
I
don't
think
anybody
else
here
does,
although
feel
free,
to
raise
your
hand
or
interrupt
me
right
now
from
wrong.
I.
Don't
think
anybody
here
has
a
good
idea
of
how
far
along
we
are
other
than
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
probably
not.
As
far
as
we'd
like
to
be.
B
A
B
No,
no,
not
yet
right
so
I,
initially
send
around
privately
to
the
TSE
as
a
gist
and
and
and
I
wanted
you
to
get
some
feedback,
and
you
know,
and
then
and
and
I
wanted
to
serve
just
get
agreement
from
the
from
the
other
members
of
the
TSE
that
we
would
that
it
was
okay
to
make
this
public
and
to
work
on
it
in
a
pull
request,
or
something
like
that
or
Google
Docs,
or
something
just
because
you
know
there
are
you
know
you,
you
know,
you
know
it's
conceivable
that
in
the
in
in
the
process
of
writing
and
editing
this
we
could,
you
know,
reveal
security
issues
in
existing
packages
that
you
know
yeah
publicly.
B
C
D
B
I
mean
it's,
you
know,
no,
you
know
there.
There
is
a
significant
number.
You
know
you
know
saw
it.
You
know.
Significant
number
of
people
in
the
community
include
some
influential
people
who
are
unlikely
to
ever
believe
that
this
is
something
that
needs
to
happen
with
it
until
you
know
until
stuff
that
you
can't
really
talk
about
is
talk
about.
You
know
you
can't
talk
about
right
now,
right,
I'll,
stop
talking
now,
okay,.
A
A
Michael
I
see
Tardos
I,
guess
I,
see
that
he's
not
actually
here,
just
that
he
updated
the
dock,
which
threw
me
off
for
a
second.
So
he
hip
dated
the
dock,
saying
that
v8
6.6
landed
on
master
today
and
we're
waiting
for
a
patch
from
the
a-team
to
make
it
compatible
with
the
upcoming
v8
6.7,
so
that
we
have
the
option
to
update.
If,
if
we
need
to
the
other
one
which
I
updated
beforehand,
is
an
API,
so
we
have
back
ports
and
progressed
for
8,
X,
+,
6
X.
A
The
one
issue
is
that
you
know
typically
in
our
maintenance
cycle
of
LTS,
we
wouldn't
necessarily
you
know,
put
in
an
assembler
minor,
so
we
probably
will
need
to
come
back
and
discuss
you
know.
Are
we
willing
to
make
an
exception
in
this
case,
because
we
think
it's
worthwhile?
You
know
in
terms
of
adoption,
helping
you
know
any
PIB
adopted
to
do
something
like
that.
I
mean
I.
A
Think
we've
done
that
and
we've
made
those
kind
of
decisions
in
the
past
to
say
you
know:
we've
got
a
process,
but
let's
actually
tweak
the
process
because
we
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
you
know
this
is
sort
of
a
heads-up.
Just
maybe
think
about
that,
because
the
discussion
will
we'll
come
back
later
on
I.
Think.
A
D
D
I
just
have
trouble
amongst
everything
else,
I'm
doing
a
build
to
find
time
to
update
that
doxy
repo.
So
it's
it's
not
actually
up-to-date
with
regard
to
the
current
status,
so
fully
engineer
still
try
and
get
that
done
before
we
can
have
a
proper
agreement
so
OpenSSL
one
one.
Zero
is
now
on
master
and
the
latest
test
release
of
James
pushed
out
to
ten.
It
was
using
it
he's
using
it.
It
doesn't
have
backward
compatibility
with
1:02,
which
is
something
that
I
did
proposing
the
dock.
D
D
D
The
ASM
the
assembly
support
so
there's,
there's
new
assembly
assembler
tool
chain
requirements
for
one
one:
zero
that
are
a
little
bit
awkward
so
particularly
on
Windows.
You
need
to
install
the
the
right
version
of
the
assembler
to
get
it
be
assembly.
The
assembly
built
at
compile
time
so
we've
been
discussing
and
I'm
Gipper
know
where
it
is
today.
I
haven't
looked,
but
we
what's
been
proposed
is
having
a
both
a
flag
in
VC,
build
up
that
and
also
configure
where
you
have
to.
D
You
have
to
say
explicitly:
yes,
I
want
that
knowin
I
am
in
my
aggressor
cell,
build
rather
than
just
silently
falling
back
to
it,
because
otherwise
people
are
much
more
likely
to
just
do
that
when
they're,
compiling
node
for
themselves
and
they'll
get
a
somewhat
more
build,
so
I
mean
there's
an
issue.
I,
don't
know
what
the
current,
what
the
number
is.
But
if
you
want
to
weigh
into
that
one
other
than
that
where
it's
everything's
on
track
for
one
one
zero
and
then
an
upgrade
to
one
one
one.
During
the
ten
current
cycle.
D
Like
yeah,
that's
my
original
contention,
there
was
that
this
there's
particularly
old
distros,
their
ownership
1:02.
It's
gonna
be
awkward
for
them
to
ship
a
new
node.
However,
the
fact
is
they
don't
do
that.
Anyway,
they
don't
ship
new
and
though
it's
the
way
to
get
new
and
know
you
either
compile
it
yourself
yourself,
download
from
no
js'
the
world
will
use
the
load
source,
Linux
distributions
to
get
it
on
an
older
platform,
older
Linux
and-
and
we
in
all
of
those
places
it's
statically
linked
anyway.
D
C
D
C
D
A
Sure,
okay
make
sense.
One
quick
question
are
we
set
in
our
builds
in
terms
of
all
the
platforms
that
had
assembly
before
or
still
have
assembly?
Now,
as.
D
Of
yesterday
we
are,
this
is
one
comment
I
made
that
the
last
test
build
I
haven't
confirmed
that
would
have
gone
out
with
no
assembly,
because
we
were
compiling
on
the
next
dev
tool
set,
which
has
an
older
and
older
AR
command
that
wouldn't
have
been
compatible.
So
I
presume
it
would
have
gone
out
with
no
assembly
and
that
that
would
have
been
silent
done
silently
without
us,
even
knowing
on
the
output.
So
that's
one
of
one
of
the
reasons
I'm
I'm
keen
on
getting
that
off
Dean
flag
in
to
configure
okay.
A
D
It's
it's
still
pretty
old,
so
it
was
just
difficult
said
that
was
the
problem.
I
think
the
one
after
that,
it's
probably
okay,
I,
think
yeah.
If
you
just
do
look
I'll
drop
and
open
to
build
for
you
Michael
with
the
the
issue
link
where
I'm
shaky
outlined,
the
versions
on
Mac
OS,
its
Xcode
fall
and
above
for
Windows,
you've
got
a
download,
NASM
and
Linux.
You've
got
to
have
I
think
it's
a
are
version
two
point:
two:
five
and
or
a
little
less
or
yum
LLVM.