►
Description
A
A
B
The
CPC
everything
is,
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
attention
is
being
focused
on
approving
the
charters
for
all
the
30
projects
that
needs
to
be
approved.
We
think
will
include
ours.
I
think
Hong
Kong
has
already
done
with
related
changes.
I
was
planning
to
do
some
of
the
work
myself,
but
I'm,
currently
very
much
trained,
so
I
will
need
some
help
by
the
ESC
in
by
the
residence
of
the
DAC
in
doing
stuff.
So
the.
A
B
Note,
okay,
so
and
we
go
and
passing
it
straight
into
the
that's
our
we
need
to
do
our
own
part
on
onboarding,
and
you
know
there
is
some
of
the
things
that
are
already
being
done,
I
assume
because
they
were
already
in
there,
but
you
need
to
project
date,
our
code
of
conduct
and
check
if
our
code
of
common
is
to
get
dated
and
then
make
sure
that
we
respect
all
the
other
bits
and
bobs.
So.
B
C
A
A
A
A
C
B
C
D
A
A
A
Okay,
so
it
sounds
like
we're:
gonna
have
a
pretty
good
coverage,
I
know
of
at
least
a
few
other
people
wait
for
they.
You
know,
there's
three
other
people
on
the
TSC
panel,
who
are
gonna,
be
there
as
well,
so
I
think
you
know
we're
gonna
have
at
least
eight
to
ten
kind
of
people,
if
not
more
okay.
So
let's
move
on
to
the
strategic
initiatives,
then.
A
B
My
PMI
massive
for
six
months
is
probably
close
to
having
an
end
date,
so
it's
kind
of
ready
to
land
right
now.
So
if
you
would
like
to
take
a
look,
it's
it's
going
to
add
experimental
promise,
support
or
event
handlers.
This
is
especially
due
to
fix
our
very
common
mistake
that
developers
do
of
using
as
some
functions
as
event,
meter
anglers,
and
so
if
they
function
projects,
you
will
end
up
with
an
under
rejection,
because
there's
nobody
no
way
for
the
unit
to
catch
them.
B
So
what
this
time
these
PR
is
going
to
do
in
tagging
is
adding
catch
an
automatic
catch
to
those
functions,
so
I
am
putting
it
back
here.
These
is
I
would
say,
ready
to
land.
It
has
been
iterated
over
since
May
motor
glass
and
I've
been
thinking
about
it
way
before
that.
So
please
check
it
out
and
yeah.
Okay.
D
A
D
D
It
turns
out
there's
a
lot
of
dusty
corners.
Ok,
then,
no
Jessica
and
for
example,
not
all
Google
tooling,
apparently
supports
Python
3
yet,
and
yet
some
of
it
doesn't
support
earlier
than
279,
which
is
pretty
rigid
there
there's
you
know
it's
like
the
main
node.js
builds
I
believe
are
seem
to
be
working.
D
A
E
E
A
I'm,
looking
at
the
sorry,
yeah
and
I
think
that's
the
list
of
strategic
initiatives
that
for
people
we
have
here,
I
I
did
want
to
spend.
Maybe
just
a
couple
minutes
I've
been
talking
to
Ben
nor
house
and
he's
been
looking
at
see
me
as
an
alternative
to
jet
for
building
node
itself
and
I.
Think
he's
getting
close
to
the
point
where
he's
got
to
have
a
proposal
and
I'm
thinking
that
you
know.
A
If,
if
we,
if
we
do
want
to
go
down
that
path,
we
should
probably
add
it
as
one
of
the
strategic
initiatives
and
I
guess.
The
first
question
here
is
like
this:
anybody
do
people
think
that's
a
good
direction
to
go
into.
You
know
going
looking
at
see,
make
versus
chip
versus
you
know.
Other
options
like
Jen,
you
know,
is
there
support
for
that,
and
and
does
it
make
sense
to
make
it
a
strategic
initiative?
It's
kind
of
that
first
question.
A
E
This
is
thing
which
is
identified
as
a
blocker
for
our
daily.
You
know
build
integration.
Step.
I
would
be
happy
to
continue
as
these
and
probably
I
will
look
at
spending
time
on
clearing
the
backlog
of
issues
and
issues
that
are
facing
the
users
or
how
do
we
contribute
better
etcetera
I
mean
in.
In
short,
the
tooling
is
doing
a
good
job,
not
actually
make
any
changes
to
that
yeah
I
guess
this.
E
E
E
D
A
D
Not
a
criticism
of
them
I,
just
they
don't
use
it.
They
don't
spend
time
on
it.
If
we
use
it,
it's
ours
to
support
and
maintain
so
I
would
say:
I
don't
know
what
there
is
it.
The
TSC
can
decide
about
this
I
mean
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion.
I
think
people,
the
general
consensus
is
people
would
be
willing
to
use
a
reworked
version
of
we'd
be
willing
to
if
people
could
there's
basically
two
forks.
D
So
we
when
problems
arise
there.
If
the
problem
applies
to
both
Forks,
it
doesn't
always
sometimes
it's
out
on
specific.
Sometimes
it's
no
J's
specific,
but
if
the
problem
applies
to
both
Forks,
we
have
to
fix
it
in
both
Forks,
and
it's
nobody's
really
happy
with
that
situation.
It's
I
mean
any
software
developer
would
look
at
that
and
be
like.
Oh,
that's
really
ugly,
but
on
the
other
hand
it
seems
to
be
limping
along.
Okay
Leo.
D
If
somebody
actually
went
through
the
work
and
came
up
with
the
tool
that
they
satisfied,
all
of
them
there
are
needs,
particularly
with
the
out
on
community
I,
can't
see
anybody
saying
no
to
it,
but
it's
a
lot
of
work
and
nobody's
nobody's
really
working
on
it.
Oh
there's
a
there's,
a
third,
so
there's
another
option.
Somebody
I
was
a
feudal
chakra
or
somebody
was
working
on
rewriting
Gipp
in
JavaScript,
so
that
I
think
there's
a
general
appetite
for
that
approach.
E
D
A
E
D
A
A
D
The
the
issue
with
every
possible
approach
has
some
pros
and
cons.
I'm.
Staying
where,
where
we
are,
has
some
definite
cons.
We
have
to
maintain
ship
files
for
all
of
our
dependencies.
So
that's
a
con
v8.
In
particular,
we
have
to
maintain
ship
files
for
so
every
time.
There's
new
v8
stuff.
If
there's
new
any
new
build
features,
we
have
to
integrate
them
into
our
chip
files.
So
that's
kind
of
a
downside.
If
we
use
what
they're
doing
and
I'm
sorry
it's
early
in
the
morning
and
a
completely
blank
time
of.
E
D
It's
no
use
in
here
yeah
yeah.
So
if
we
use
GN,
then
we
would
get
v8
build
support
for
free
because
they
maintain
the
GN
files
for
VA
and
suddenly
that
would
be
great,
but
we
would
have
to
convert
all
of
our
other
dependencies
to
build
using
GN
OpenSSL,
for
example,
would
be
a
chunk
of
work,
and
some
of
the
other
dependencies
would
hopefully
be
easy.
So
now
we'd
be
maintaining
GN
files
instead
of
dot
chip
files
for
all
of
the
non
behave
dependencies.
D
The
other
possibility
is
C
make
where
we
just
kind
of
bite.
The
bullet.
We
use
tooling,
that
that
many
C++
developers
are
familiar
with
and
that's
used
by
Libya
v,
actually
I.
Take
that
back.
I
think
levy
is
using
using
Otto
tools,
so
it
would
be
a
fairly
standard
approach,
any
other
long
sort
of
it
is
I
yeah.
If
anybody
has
a
really
strong
objection
to
see
Mike,
it's
probably
worth
stepping
up
and
stating
it,
but
my
personal
opinion
is
if
it
works
and
it's
maintainable.
E
A
Okay,
so
yeah,
that's
where
we're
trying
to
get
to
is
like
if
there.
If
there
are
objections
or
people,
think
it's
not
the
right
direction
to
go
in
to
make
sure
to
chime
in
to
the
tissue.
There
is
already
an
issue
open
which
I
can
find
and
paste
into
the
issue,
and
you
know
Ben
will
be
I,
think
hehe
had
a
proposal.
There
was
some
discussion
already
a
little
bit
about
that,
but
it's
gonna
be
updated
and
you
know
I
think
it's
it's
a
fairly
big
effort
right.
So
it's
you
know.
A
We
should
make
sure
that
we're
on
the
same
page
of
yeah.
This
is
the
direction
we
think
we
want
to
go
and,
like
Sam
said,
there's
a
bunch
of
different
options,
but
none
of
them
are
easier
or
and
all
have
just
some
disadvantages.
So
it
sounds
like
there's
nobody.
You
know
other
than
Jewish
saying.
Maybe
we
should
just
stick
with
what
we
got,
but
I
guess
my
ask
would
be
to
get
involved
in
that
issue
so
that
we
can
come
to
a
conclusion.