►
Description
A
A
It
sounds
like
we
don't
have
any
announcements
this
week.
Moving
on
to
the
CPC
and
board
meeting
updates,
I
don't
have
anything
new
to
report
on
the
board
front.
The
meeting
is
not
this
week
but
the
week
after
so
again,
if
there's
anything
you
want
to
put
on
to
our
agenda
to
discuss
at
that
point,
let
me
know
or
add
it
to
the
board
in
terms
of
the
CPC
updates.
A
A
B
Guess,
like
the
big
things
that
are
going
on
right
now,
are
some
more
discussions
around
the
project
proposal
process
for
the
foundation
I'd
also,
you
know
like
for
folks
in
general,
the
CPC
is
rather
open.
If
you
don't
have
the
time
totally
reasonable
and
understand
it's
not
what
everyone
wants
to
spend
time
on.
But
if
you
you
know
like
have
a
pee
hands
about
you
know
what
other
projects
should
be
in
the
foundation
and
shew,
who
should
be
our
peers?
B
B
A
A
A
Yeah,
so
there
was
the
action
we
took.
The
action
of
you
know:
Matteo
took
the
action
to
basically
ask
the
TSE
members
to
comment
on
their
on
their
preferences.
It
looks
like
you
know,
there's
eight
people
who
have
weighed
in
or
maybe
seven
from
the
TSE
who
said
you
know
behind
behind
an
opt-in
flag
and
if
I
look
at
it,
two
people
from
the
TSE
who
opted
in
who
basically
said
with
a
you
know
always
on
with
an
opt-out
flag
and
then
a
few
people
sort
of
you
know
clarified
some
variations
thereof.
A
A
B
One
of
the
things
that
I'm
personally
worried
about
on
this
one
is
that,
like
we
have
so
many
CLI
utilities
that
people
use
all
the
time
we're
like
you're
using
control-c
generally
is
the
way
to
like
end
that
process.
So
from
like
a
user
experience
standpoint
if
I
start
having
stack
traces
all
the
time
by
default
when
I
do
that,
my
intuition
is
that's
not
a
great
experience,
but
the
idea
of
having
stacked
rates
is
on
exit
like
behind
a
flag
or
something
like
that
seems
extremely
useful
from
a
debugging
perspective.
A
B
A
B
A
C
D
D
A
D
C
E
A
A
Guess
I
was
just
thinking
like
it'd,
be
good
to
avoid
adding
a
whole
bunch
of
environment,
new
environment
options.
If
this
is
a
if
this
is
a
more
general
case
of
hey,
you
want
to
put
some
options
in
your
like
Darcy
and
some
somewhere
else.
Maybe
we
should
generalize
the
solution
rather
than
adding
an
option
specifically
for
this.
D
D
A
Okay,
I
think,
given
that,
like
the
the
the
feedback
in
the
issue,
is
kind
of
like
from
the
TSC,
it's
like
seven
from
the
TSE
members
who've
direct
who've
like
participated
in
that
poll
was
like
seven
for
behind
an
opt-in
flag
and
two
always
on
so
I
think
that
feedback
is
kind
of
consistent
with
what
we're
talking
with
here.
It
is
there
more
that
we
need
to
do
from
the
TSE
side
before
we
add
before
we
get
input
from
the
tooling
team.
D
Perhaps
we
could
ask
people
who
voted
this
to
be
the
default
behavior?
Why
do
they
think
the
edge?
This
should
be
a
default?
Oh
hell
like
if
we
already
had
this
behind
the
flag,
like
imagine.
If
we
had
this
name,
you
can
catch
a
flag
that
could
be
used
to
enable
this,
because
we
need
to
make
that
a
default
or
not.
Or
would
this
be
not
an
issue
anymore,
but.
E
E
F
A
And
I
I
think
that's
kind
of
reflected
in
what's
reported
in
the
issue
like
there's
more
TSE
members
that
are
on
that
side
versus
the
other,
but
I
do
think
getting
more
feedback
from
the
tooling
team
like
they
may
shed
a
different
light
on
that,
and
you
know
it's
either
more
information
to
convince
the
people
who
aren't
on
that
side
or
maybe
they'll,
say
something
that
changes
the
mind.
Yes,.
D
H
H
Yeah
I
mean
I
already
said
this
I
think
I
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
enabling
it
and
a
master
and
seeing
if
people
hate
it
I
take
that
I.
Think
Ben
makes
a
good
point
that
the
Python
community
is
not
screaming
about
it
and
in
fact,
I
used
Python
for
years
and
I
knew
or
did
that
to
be
honest
and
I.
Don't
never
remember
it
bothering
me.
Well,
maybe
it's
no
big
deal,
it's
just
a
change.
H
It's
definitely.
The
problem
is
getting
getting
some
kind
of
feedback
from
actual
users,
yeah
and
I.
Think
the
history
of
optional
features
that
are
hard
to
discover
that
you
have
to
turn
on
they're,
not
very
good
ways
of
getting
feedback
from
the
user
community.
It's
not
me
not
necessarily
a
solution,
but
it's
just
I
think
to
recognize
it.
It's
not
so
helpful
I'm
worried
that
we
just
kind
of
created
the
despot.
It's
like!
Oh,
oh
yeah,
we'll
do
it
we'll
just
think
my
planning,
then
we.
H
B
I,
don't
think
that
that's
earth-shattering
I,
don't
think
that
that's
like
totally
breaking
for
folks,
especially
if
it's
on
like
an
uneven
version
of
current
and
further,
it
could
very
well
work
as
a
really
great
advertisement
for
the
feature.
A
bunch
of
people
are
angry
and
then
make
like
hacker
news
thread
or
something
about
it.
G
B
A
A
A
G
A
Okay,
thanks
for
that
updates,
so
then
I'm
moving
on
to
the
next
issue,
which
is
build
ongoing
list
of
actions
for
Python,
three
compatibility
that
is
on
there,
mostly
as
a
tracking
issue.
I
know
that
last
week,
Klaus
had
identified
a
few
specifics
in
terms
of
blocking
issues.
I
don't
have
a
new
update
this
week.
I
don't
know
Sam.
If
you
have
any,
have
you
seen
anything
on
that
front.
H
Yeah
I
think
it's
too
soon
for
a
new
update.
It's
the
more
thing.
A
couple
more
things
landed.
A
few
I'm
gonna
check
today,
a
few
more
things.
Other
things
might
be
ready
to
land.
I
I
think
the
big
thing
that
someone
needs
to
look
at
and
I'm
planning
to
do
that
when
I
get
some
time
is
there
needs
to
be
changes
in
note
chip
they
get
published.
A
A
F
H
A
E
E
E
If
there
are
issues
we
can
totally
tell
people
hey,
use,
PC
lie
flat
to
revert
to
the
old
parser
for
now
as
a
workaround,
and
so
so
so
I
see
and
think
spam
was
in
favor
of
this
being
another
major
and
material
and
chains
were
at
least
leaning
towards
it,
but
I
think
they
also
said
that
they
would
be
okay
with
lending
it
as
a
minor.
If
the
TSP
is
fine
with
it.
H
H
E
H
H
E
B
So
what
if
we?
What
if
we
split
the
difference
Anna
so
we
have,
we
do
have
a
policy
for
LTS
that
for
security
purposes,
we
can
Lance
embers
major
changes
as
semver
minor,
so
just
kind
of
spitballing
here,
take
it
or
leave
it.
What
if
we
did
assembler
minor
landing,
I,
don't
know
if
there
already
is
a
Warner
warning
if
you
use
the
experimental
loader,
but
make
it
extremely
clear
in
the
warning.
B
That's
what
I
meant
I
meant
the
parser
okay,
just
to
be
clear,
sir
yeah,
my
only
concern
would
like
just
removing
it
is
that
like
had
we
done
this
when
we
cut
12
or
had
we
done
it
like
further
out
from
the
LTS,
we
would
have
had
some
time
to
kind
of
figure
out
what
the
implications
of
removing
it
would
be
to
the
ecosystem.
I
I,
don't.
E
B
F
And
and
additionally,
you
know
if
a
major
security
hole
does
present
itself,
then
that
company
will
also
have
every
motivation
to
switch
to
the
new
parser
which,
which
you
know
will
be
underscored
by
our
warning,
saying
that
we're
gonna
drop
this
parser,
so
I
think
that
the
the
you
know
these
coroner
case
companies
so
to
speak.
They
actually
support
your
point,
which
is,
if,
if
I
understood
correctly
to
keep
it
around,
unless
you
know
you
know,
a
big
security
hole
comes
up.
In
which
case
you
know
dropping
is
in
their
interest
to
write
mm-hmm.
A
D
A
E
The
downside
is
that
there's
practically
practically
speaking,
that's
already
pretty
much
no
difference
between
the
old
and
the
new
parser
and
so
adding
a
warning
just
as
preached
that
should
need
to
be
there.
And
if
somebody
actually
wants
to
opt
into
the
open
a
year,
then
that
is
not
something
they
do
explicitly
and
that
they
want
to
do.
E
A
G
E
A
So
it's
like
you
know:
if
we
got
one
in
the
next
the
extra
year
that
we
would
had
twelve,
would
we
you
know,
would
we
tell
people?
Sorry
you
have
to
you
know
you
have
to
move
up
because
we're
now
just
deleting
it
or
would
we
try
and
fix
it
if
they're,
if
people
are
basically
at
bigger
risk
than
they
might
expect,
the
warning
could
help
in
that
respect
in
terms
of
like
you're
using
this,
but
this
might
cause
you
problems.
A
F
G
G
A
A
A
G
Where
it
exists
there,
if,
if
there's
some
issue
is
notice,
some
amount
of
maintenance
is
going
to
be
done
debate,
I
presume
I
mean
we
still
treat
it
like
anything
else
if,
like
its
security,
so
if
it
is
used
in,
say
an
LT
IceBridge
like
ten,
where
it
still
exists
and
I
think
it's
might
still
be
the
defaults
and
anyways
and
there's
a
security
issue
with
it.
There
we're
still
going
to
deal
with
that
right.
A
G
B
G
B
Guess
the
premise
that
I
was
building
on
there
was
that
we
don't
have
people
who
want
to
maintain
it
right
now
and
the
reason
for
removing
it
now
would
be
kind
of
defensive
against
this
scenario.
So,
instead
of
like
defensively,
removing
it
still
leave
that
option
in
LTS
for
people
who
need
it
but
included
with
it
a
very
clear
warning
saying:
if
this
situation
we
want
to
defend
against
happens,
it
will
be
removed.
B
Do
we
also
do
have
prior
art
from
a
like?
If
one
of
the
questions
to
is
removing
an
API
or
removing
this
as
a
cemre
major,
whether
or
not
that
is
kind
of
like
aligned
with
our
historical
process,
we
do
have
historical
process
of
landing.
Several
major
changes,
assembler
minor
and
security
releases.
So
it's
you
know
like
very
in
line
with
our
process
and
very
much
in
line
with
the
way
that
we've
done
things
before
and.
F
H
G
B
G
G
E
B
Like
I
guess
Anna
to
your
point,
then-
and
maybe
this
is
the
flip
side
of
it.
If
we
can
reach
consensus
on
landing
this
now
and
we
could
even
we
could
even
land
it
as
a
security
relief,
anyways
I
won't
get
into
that,
but
like
landing,
it
now
does
also
make
this
explicit
thing
saying:
hey
going
from
10
to
12.
This
is
something
that
you're
gonna
have
to
change
and
then
kind
of
acts
as
a
forcing
function
for
people
having
to
upgrade
sooner
right.
A
The
one
the
one
challenge
with
that
is,
you
know
people
who've
been
doing
their
proper.
Due
diligence
have
tested
things
out
for
the
last
four
or
five
months
on
the
assumption
that
there's
no
cember
breaking
thing
in
12.
It's
it's.
You
know
it's
a
timing
thing
right
like
to
do
that.
A
month
before,
we've
already
got
our
see
our
first
RC
out
to
now
drop
something
in
12.
A
E
Feel,
like
this
discussion
isn't
really
going
anywhere,
or
at
least
it
isn't
like
useful
compared
to
what
the
actual
issue
is.
It's
like,
if
we,
if
we
don't
land
here
in
12,
I'm
fine
with
that,
it's
okay,
it's
just
this,
isn't
a
huge
deal
and
it's
inquiries
like
could
the
wedding
or
something
feels
we
don't
care
about
that
like
there's,
somebody
feels
wrong
about
them.
A
G
F
Yes,
so
at
that
point
it
is
a
security
issue
right
and,
and
then
at
that
point
it
may
be
somewhere
minor
right,
no
matter
what
the
state
of
the
various
release
lines
is
right,
that's
my
understanding.
So
then,
at
that
point,
yes,
we
can
just
drop
it.
That
that
is
a
potential
fixed
or
a
security
issue
is
to
just
remove
the
code
that
causes
it
right.
Yeah,
yeah,.
B
E
A
Like
we
probably
won't
run
into
any
problem,
missed
the
answer
right
yeah
and
that
you
know
if
we,
if
we
forget
faced
with
something
where
it
tends
out
of
service,
there's
a
huge
amount
of
work
to
fix
it
in
twelve
and
everybody's
using
the
other
parser
we
can.
You
know,
make
the
hard
decision
at
that
point
right.
A
I
mean
I.
The
only
last
thing
that
comes
to
mind
is
maybe
we
want
to
do
a
little
bit
of
evangelization
if
it
makes
sense
to
say
please
don't
be
using
this,
we
could
like
do
a
blog,
post
or
I.
Don't
know
what
that
we
think.
That
makes
any
sense.
Just
back
to
the
comment
of
you
know:
command
line
is
really
discoverable,
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
more
discoverable
way
to
say
hey,
you
know
you
can
use
this
for
now,
but
be
aware.
I
think
that's
the
warning
really.
E
A
B
I
think
pretty
much
it
and
the
warning
can
even
come
in
a
future.
Assembler
minor
release
like
it's,
not
even
something
we
need
to
rush
to
get
in
there
for
what
it's
worth
like.
Obviously,
we'd
want
to
do
it
sooner
rather
than
later,
but
you
know
it's
something
that
could
be
bundled
into
a
future
security
release
or
a
future
semver
minor
release
the
sooner
the
better,
but
it
is
something
that
could
come
later.
Yes,.
A
H
A
So
my
understanding
of
that
one
is
that
there's
an
issue
basically
compiling
v8
version
7.8
on
Mac
OS.
The
issue
is
that
the
we're
using
an
older
version
of
the
the
Xcode
tools
and
so
it'll
compile
fine
within
the
newer
tools.
The
challenge
is,
though,
that
you
know
to
move
to
a
later
version
of
Xcode.
Xcode
tools
means
a
bunch
of
work
on
the
build
side.
A
You
know
we
either
need
a
separate
set
of
machines
with
the
newer
version
of
Xcode,
or
we
need
to
figure
out
how
you
get
two
versions
of
Xcode
on
a
single
machine,
and
you
know
right
now:
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
anybody.
Who's
got
the
time
or
cycles
to
make
that
happen
in
time
for
13th
and
cutoff
date
for
13,
the
21st
is
the
assembler
major
cutoff,
and
the
discussion
is
that,
like
you
know,
basically
changing
the
level
of
the
Xcode
version.
B
A
B
So
I
can
follow
up
again
and
try
to
see
if
I
can
get.
Someone
from
the
v8
team
may
be
to
put
some
cycles
on
this
in
the
next
48
hours
to
try
to
speak.
The
very
least
can
get
a
patch
on
on
top
of,
on
top
of
it,
I
wonder
just
as
a
as
a
thought
Michael
would
you
feel
comfortable
from
the
build
team
changing
what
the
minimal
supported
compiler
is,
even
if
it's
not
what
we're
using
in
our
infrastructure
today
under
the
pretense
that
we
plan
to
update
it
over
the
next
couple
months.
B
Mostly,
what
I'm
thinking
about
here
would
be
if
we
can
do
like
a
patch
job
right
now
of
like
finding
I
can
unroll
these
things
today,
even
just
a
bit
of
time
to
roll
up
the
new
infrastructure.
Well,
if
we
were
to
update
27.9
during
the
life
cycle
of
13,
we
would
be
in
a
good
place.
Do
you
think
that
that's
something
that
we
could
do?
I.
A
I'm
comfortable
with
that,
like
until
you
know,
we've
done
done
that,
for
you
know
at
least
one
platform
where
we
said
like
hey
here's
the
minimum
compiler,
but
we
haven't
managed
to
get
the
compiler
up
to
that.
So
I
would
want
to
get
consensus
in
the
build
team,
but
I
think
changing
the
minimum,
even
though
we're
not
there
yet
I'm,
ok
with
ok.
B
If
you're,
if
you're
good
at
chasing
down
changing
the
minimum,
I
can
chase
down
someone
and
theater
or
potentially
even
find
some
time
myself
to
see
if
I
can
get
that,
so
that
we
can
hopefully
get
a
patch
on
top
of
this,
so
we
can
at
least
get
a
building
on
our
infrastructure
to
land
it
on
to
land.
It
yep.
A
A
Basically,
his
comment
here
is
that,
based
on
you
know,
asking
people
who
still
involved
and
and
looking
at
that
you
know,
the
recommendation
is
that
we
recertify
at
bench
in
a
mirror:
B&B
LG,
harb,
I'm,
Lisa
and
Ryan
Murakami
I
will
paste
those
in
the
the
chat
and
that
the
other
people
on
the
second
list-
I'm
pasting
in
of
course.
Now
they
both
look
the
same.
But
you
know
basically
that
those
people
have
either
I
self-identified
or
not
responded
so
that
we
should
remove
them.