►
From YouTube: Node.js Technical Steering Committee meeting
Description
A
A
Okay
and
the
first
issue
on
the
agenda
is
a
nodejs
build
its
issue.
One
three,
three,
seven
great
issue:
number
requests
for
elevated
permissions
from
my
last
information.
I
think
we
can
leave
this
to
the
build
working
group
to
figure
this
out
and
rich
is
going
to
set
up
a
meeting
to
handle
some
more
to
details,
see
anything
else.
Somebody
wants
to
add.
B
A
C
A
A
D
A
E
Yellow
yeah
very
sweets,
you
were
just
trying
to
figure
out
the
last
set
of
things
to
get
it
out
of
experimental
I
had
opened
an
issue
on
that.
We
got
some
responses.
I
found
occasion
for
the
fact
I
haven't
gone
through
those
yet
to
determine
what
the
company
compiled
with
his
next
steps
are,
should
be
doing
that
this
week.
The
goal
is
to
get
it
out
of
experimental
by
the
end
of
August
before
10
goes
into
LTS
on
children.
Great.
E
B
So
an
EPA
front,
just
continued
focus
on
the
dock,
for
no
data
API
as
well
as
evangelism,
so
working
on
there's
a
workshop
at
node
summit
as
well
as
two
talks
and
we're
also
planning
a
blog
when
node
eight
goes
out,
December
reminder
of
no
go.
Eight
goes
out
to
sort
of
we
we,
you
know.
Let
people
know
that
it's
available
across
all
the
different
releases
and
the
current
stability
status
sweeps.
A
A
E
And
we're
progressing
there.
The
the
test
coverage
for
FS
promises
is
is,
is
it's
definitely
improving,
we're
getting
folks
kind
of
kicking
the
tires
on
that
kind
of
figuring
out?
What
where
the
rough
edges
are,
there
is
an
effort
to
I,
think
I'm,
not
sure
the
PR
is
landed
yet,
but
there
was
the
the
pr2
it
promises
support
for
the
DNS
module.
E
At
this
point,
it's
just
going
to
be
a
matter
of
incrementally
going
through
a
bit
slowly
and
add
promises
where
they
makes
sense,
and
you
know,
make
sure
we're
just
making
sure
we're
being
very
deliberate
about
it.
So
no
significant
updates
at
this
point-
it's
just
you
know,
marching
forward.
Okay,.
E
Yeah
I
mean
anybody,
can
look
at
any
of
the
modules
in
look,
you
see
were
promises
make
sense.
The
the
complicating
factor
is
that
some
folks
have
asked
in
the
past.
Just
do
it
across
the
board.
Just
make
every
function,
promise
a
promise
fight
and
that
doesn't
actually
make
sense.
There's
a
lot
of
methods
where
just
a
promise,
fight
version
is
actually
would
be
breaking
or
would
be,
would
have
to.
E
D
Haven't
had
too
much
time
to
dig
into
this
right
now
we
made
a
shift
from
it
being
toc
governance
to
general
project
governance.
If
anyone
thinks
that
that's
you
know
not
really
sufficient
or
a
good
idea,
please
feel
free
to
you
know.
Let
me
know
we
can
discuss
it.
I
think
the
main
idea
around
this
would
be
discussions
around
some
of
the
governance
of
the
project,
especially
how
we're
handling
pull
requests
to
try
to
improve
our
overall
LTS
strategy.
D
We've
started
to
onboard
some
more
people,
LTS
I,
think
the
plan
is
start
spinning
up
meetings
again
and
those
meetings
are
going
to
generate
the
hook
would
be
suggestions
and
proposals
as
to
overall
governance,
changes
that
we
could
be
making
to
how
we
manage
pull
requests
to
improve.
You
know
our
velocity
and
maintaining
LTS
releases.
Okay.
F
A
A
So
about
v8
Michael
is
saying,
update
to
be
eight
six.
Eight
waiting
for
bill
changes
because
more
recent
version
of
Mac
OS
is
needed.
Peter
Marshall
opened
a
pull
request
to
patch
a
bi
compatibility
with
no
ten,
so
that
will
allow
us
to
make
more
of
a
DUP
dates
without
breaking
ABI
and
canary
bird
is
currently
broken.
But
Anna
is
working
on
a
fix
right.
The.
B
Thing
the
thing
I
think
is
good
for
us
to
touch
on
here
is
on
the
OS
X
version.
We
need
to
make
a
decision,
I
guess
in
in
two
different
things
with
respective
to
six.
Eight
is
like:
are
we
okay
with
no
longer
allowing
having
people
be
able
to
build
with
OSX
1010
for
master
and
then
I
guess
separately,
whether
we're
the
back
port
that
the
the
other
pieces,
I
guess
Marla's?
B
You
were
gonna
see
if
talk
to
the
v8
team
to
see
if
there
is
a
way
that
you
know
this,
is
it
that
there's
a
broad
number
of
changes
that
require
that
new
compiler
or
is
there
just
a
few?
We
might
workaround
to
avoid
that
at
least
for,
like
backporting
I
think
going
forward?
We
maybe
should
just
decide
we
can
do
it,
but
the
back
porting
to
previous
releases
like
ten,
might
be
a
different
case.
Yeah.
D
That's
thanks
for
reminding
me
I
gotta
follow
up
on
that.
A
B
A
D
This
pull
request:
has
you
know
a
bunch
of
plus
ones
on
it?
Right
now
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
objections,
and
then
it
just
outlines
a
policy
for
keeping
NPM
up
to
date
inside,
of
course,
specifically,
the
upon
request
should
be
open
when
a
next
version
of
NPM
has
been
released
once
the
next
version
has
been
promoted
to
latest
the
PR
should
be
updated
as
necessary.
Two
weeks
after
the
latest
release
has
been
promoted,
it
can
land
on
master,
assuming
no
major
regressions
are
found.
There
are.
There
is
no
additional
constraints
for
summer
major.
D
Maybe
that
should
be.
There
are
I'll
get
to
that.
After
the
nodejs
release
stream
the
node.js
release
streams,
the
new
version
will
land
into
our
at
the
discretion
of
the
release
and
LTS
teams.
The
only
process
the
only
product
this
process
only
covers
full
updates
to
new
versions
of
NPM.
Cherry-Pick
changes
can
be
reviewed
and
landed
via
the
normal
consensus
seeking
process.
This
PR
has
been
open
for
12
days
now
it
has
approvals
from
three
TFC
members
and
both
IANA
and
cat.
D
The
maintainer
z'
of
the
npm
CLI
have
chimed
in
that
they
feel
comfortable
with
this
MOU
request,
since
it
appears
to
me
that
we
actually
have
quorum
or
close
to
quorum
on
this
call
are
there
any
objections
are
concerned.
The
people
on
the
call
have
and
if
I,
remove
ahead
with
landing
this
and
closing
out
this
initiative
instead.
A
F
D
Nothing
major
to
talk
about
right
now
with
web
standards.
Tc39
meetings
coming
up
in
two
weeks
time,
I
won't
be
attending,
but
other
members
from
the
team
are
recently
joined,
w3c
working
group
and
starting
to
wrap
my
header
a
little
bit
around
that
and
where
we
can
get
engaged
and
been
having
conversations
with
people
from
the
what
working
group
kind
of
meta
conversations
about
how
we
can
get
more
engaged
but
is
still
very
much
in
the
early
discussion
phase.
Cool.
C
A
Timothy,
okay,
so
thanks
everybody
for
the
updates.
We
have
one
more
issue
that
is
proposal
at
our
new
core
modules
under
scope
too
late
for
http/2,
and
that
is
in
note
J
stsc
issues,
three,
eight,
nine.
The
last
comment
on
the
issue
was
almost
two
weeks
ago
and
there's
currently
work
in
progress
for
requests
and
commits
I.
Think
right
now
we
nothing
to
discuss
there.
We
just
let
the
poor
requests.
Do
the
work.