►
From YouTube: Node.js Tooling Group Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
The
first
thing
is
announcements
and
I.
We
don't
ever
seem
to
actually
do
that.
We
like
do
it
at
the
end.
I
want
to
start
I
want
to
do
an
announcement,
and
the
announcement
is
yay.
Mocha
released
version
8.
You
know
it
has
support
for
testing
in
parallel,
and
that
was
a
big
deal
and
that
took
a
while
to
get
done
actually
years.
People
have
been
asking
for
that
for
years
it
did
take
like
a
couple
months
to
actually
implement
that
it
landed
it.
B
A
That's
that
should
be
on
the
on
the
list
here
of
agenda
items,
so
we
can
follow
up
on
that
there
any
anything
new
from
from
NPM.
Did
you
really
set
DIF
thing
yet.
A
D
A
D
I
mean
I,
mean
I,
found
them
useful
in
the
past.
I
don't
know,
maybe
we
should
just
type,
even
if
we
don't
do
one.
Maybe
we
have
a
meeting
with
some
of
the
folks
in
this
meeting
around
that
time.
If
there's
not
one
already
and
just
talk
about
it'd
be
nice
to
look
back
on
the
last
one
we
had
and
see
if
like.
D
A
A
Right
that
first
thing
is
this
deep
dive
meeting
proposal
stuff
and
you
know
what
actually
I
want
to
move
that
to
the
end,
because
that
was
kind
of
an
open-ended
thing.
I.
Actually
you
know
what
never
mind
the
deep
dive
me
nosal's.
So
I
made
an
issue
and
it
says:
hey
if
you
have
an
idea
for
something
you
want
to
spend
an
entire
meeting
on
toss
it
in
this
issue
well
and
we'll
find
something
I
want
to
work
on.
I
think
it's.
It's
certainly
a
little
more
interesting
than
just
like
going
down
this
list.
A
B
E
E
A
A
E
Possibly
my
only
concern
with
adding
an
event
the
event
emitter
API
allows
for
arbitrary
removal
and
in
particular,
allow
allows
basically
remove
all
so.
My
concern
would
be,
for
example,
if
I'm,
if
NYC
is
testing
something
and
some
code
does
adds
their
own
exit
Handler
and
then
just
sloppily
does
remove
all
just
to
remove
their
own
without
tracking
it.
Then
that
could
break
our
code.
I
guess
that
that's
my
main
issue
with
the
event
emitter
is
that
code
that
didn't
add
the
hook
and
remove
it.
E
E
A
A
B
B
A
E
E
E
A
A
I,
don't
know
I've
used
that
pattern
before,
but
I
haven't
thought
I
haven't
like
really
thought
about.
Okay,
what
are
the
disadvantages
of
doing
it?
This
way?
What
what
do
we?
What
are
we
stopping
from
happening?
What
are
we
disabling
that
we
shouldn't
be
disabling
and
I?
Guess
the
system
I'm
just
talking
it's
a
good
question
to
ask:
okay.
A
C
So
I
mean
then
just
kind
of
what
I
would
consider
has
been
leading
me
through
the
copis,
but
and
doing
a
bit
of
work
on
this
actually,
first,
so
that's
kind
of
an
update
there
Ben,
you
can
also
shot
some
light
on.
That
is
also
cut
a
branch
that
I'm
gonna
take
over
with
some
initial
work,
they're,
just
basically
taking
Isaac's
initial
implementation
of
mater,
and
we
would
have
to
clean
that
to
actually
make
it
like
a
proper
proposal
right.
C
Some
tests
for
as
well
in
terms
of
the
security
implications
like
I,
know,
Isaac
chimed
in
there
and,
of
course,
I
think
you
followed
up
also
on
the
threat
itself.
I
personally,
I
would
say
it's
over
my
pay
grade
or,
and
knowledge
great,
probably
chimed
in
on
on
how
to
utilize
or
why
this
might
be
insecure
or
that
there
might
be
opportunity
to
use
mater
if
we
implements
the
recursive
functionality
in
touch
mode,
I'm
open
to
discussion
there
and
yeah.
D
F
D
D
So
I,
don't
know
what
about
that
and
I'm,
not
a
security
expert
either,
but
knowing
Isaac
I'm
sure
he's
dug
into
it
deeply
and
has
valid
concerns.
So
it
becomes
this
question
of
like
these
security
concerns
versus
like
only
having
some
of
the
API
surface
of
the
filesystem,
be
recursive
and
having
other
parts
not
be
recursive.
So
no
raises
an
interesting
question
like
I
would
wonder.
Maybe
someone
needs
to
dive
into
a
specific.
D
Post
that
Isaak
is
shared
and
see
if
there's
like,
if
there's
any
ways
to
break
the
concern,
is
there
any
safe
way
to
do
it?
Could
we
is
it
safer?
If
we
no,
no
III,
think
part
of
the
problem
is
just
that
file
system
operations
can't
be
synchronous
across
multiple
files,
I
think
so.
I,
don't
know
that
there's
I,
don't
know,
I
think
someone
needs
to
dig
into
the
security
issue
and
then
there's
the
question
like.
D
If
we're
gonna
actively
choose
not
to
make
some
of
our
file
system
operations,
recursive
I
think
we
should
call
that
out
in
documentation
like
here's,
why
you
should
be
mindful
and
here's
why
this
does
this
method
doesn't
exist?
Maybe
if
we're
going
to
start
adding
recursive
to
more
more
file
system
operations.
D
Worth
noting
I
was
looking
at
chmod
R
on
NPM
I
mean
it's
used,
but
it's
certainly
not
like
nearly
as
used
in
the
community
as
like,
making
make
Jerry
recursive
or
remove
directory
recursive
and
I
noticed
MPM
itself,
which
I
would
expect,
would
have
this
need
of
changing
permissions
on
a
large
number
of
files.
I
didn't
notice,
MP
I'm,
relying
on
it
so
I.
Guess
you
vendor
all
your
dependencies.
I.
Am,
though,
right
you,
don't
you
fender?
D
We
entered
rim
ref
and
we'll
meet
in
it
by
the
contributor
and
it
basically
just
basically
just
moved
ram
rap
over
into
internal
/fs,
slash
brim
raff.
So
I
think
if
we
were
gonna
start
using
that
approach
for
a
few
more
file
system
operations,
then
we
could
just
use
that
as
a
pattern
for
anything
that
has
cuz,
I
mean
we
made.
We
didn't
victor
recursive
in
c
and
Victor
has
of
one
special
trait,
which
is
that
it
has
to
be
done
serially
because
you
need
to
be
creating
these
deep.
D
C
D
G
D
Yeah
so
I
don't
know,
maybe
maybe
the
action
item
here
is.
Someone
needs
to
deeply
understand
these
types
of
attacks
that
Isaac
has
pointed
us
towards
and
we
need
to
decide
whether
it's
acceptable
risk
or
if
there
are
known
ways
to
circumvent
these
attacks
before
we
expose
the
node.js
code
base
to
them
and
I
think
that's
a
really
I
think.
That's
really
fair
feedback
on
Isaac's
part.
D
A
Is
it
not
fair
to
I
mean
so
number
one
I
don't
feel
like?
We
should
like
not
send
the
PR
because
it
might
be
risky,
but
I
mean
is.
Is
it
better
to
just
like?
Do
it
and
then
say,
hey
security,
working
group?
What
do
you
think
of
this?
Because
unless
you,
you
know
what
you're
talking
about
you,
don't
really
know
what
you're.
A
D
Mean
that's
times
reasonable
and
I
mean
I.
Six
other
point
he
made
was
that,
like
a
strong
warning
that
says
his
advice
was:
don't
do
this
in
a
production
environment,
but
what
does
that
mean?
Like
is
my
co
I
running?
Is
my
co
I
running
and
unit
tests
that
a
production
environment,
like
you
know
it
to
what
degree
you
know
in
the
second
we
add
something
into
node
Corp
or
that
there
is
the
risk
that
people
are
gonna
immediately,
use
it
in
a
production
environment.
D
So
if
it
is
a
really
significant
security
concern,
then
like
I,
we
do
need
to
protect
our
users
from
that
right.
So
I
don't
know
yeah
you're
in
a
raid
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
any
problem
for
a
person
proposal
getting
it
to
the
point
of
polish
and
then
I
think,
but
making
sure
that
we're
looping
in
the
security
group
and
having
a
conversation
about
it
and
it
might
just
I
think
that's
a
good
idea
and
I
think
it
might
help
inform
us
on
future.
D
If
we,
if
we
continue
this
initiative
of
trying
to
move
more
of
the
the
method,
the
operation
is,
that
makes
sense
to
be
recursive
making
them
recursive.
We
should
definitely
understand
this
specific
category
of
issue,
because
I
bet
this
will
come
up
want
it
on
multiple
like
will
come
up
for
chmod
and
shown
I
think
has
the
same
vulnerability
and
I
think
there
was
just
something
we
need
to
have
on
our
minds.
So
just
were.
C
D
D
B
I
think
Isaac's
main
complaint
is
the
L
stat
vs.
Reed
deer
timing,
and
you
could
do
FD
opened
er
instead
of
Reed
deer
and
F
stat.
Instead
and
it
would
work
I,
don't
think
FD
open
deer
is
provided
by
Libya
V
currently,
but
it
could
also
be
that
we
can
ship
at
least
a
PR
with
the
current
behavior
and
then
migrate
over
to
those
to
underlying
API.
So
there
isn't
a
timing
window
for
people
to
exploit
that.
D
B
No
it
it
doesn't
need
to
be
done
in
C++,
but
we
don't
expose
the
proper
api's
to
JavaScript
currently,
basically,
what
the
problem
is
by
using
a
string
look
up
for
else
that,
after
your
else
that
call
you're
no
longer
guaranteed
the
the
file
pointed
to
by
that
string
is
the
same
when
you
use
a
string
again.
So
instead
you
can
open
derp
it
from
a
file
descriptor
and
F
stat
it.
So
it's
always
on
the
same
file
descriptor,
and
that
would
ensure
that
it's
always
a
song.
D
B
D
Makes
sense
so
yeah,
that's,
it
sounds
like
Darcy
I
think
you
could
see
that
pull
request
to
like
where
it
needs
to
be,
which
means
getting
it
toward
for
promises
for
synchronous
and
adding
unit
tests,
and
then
we
just
when
we
opened
up
error.
It's
just
a
start
of
a
conversation
about
how
we
would
address
this
issue
and
that
that
might
be
there's
a
little
further
work
to
add
a
method
to
live,
UV
or
yeah.
We'll
see
what.
A
Ok,
anything
else
on
sure
mater.
C
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
D
Yeah
I'd
be
up
for
that
I
mean
if
the
main
issue
that
I'm
just
reading
through
again
again
I
mean
the
main
issue
that
I
was
originally
trying
to
solve.
I
think
when
I
got
interested
in
this
problem,
space
was
the
Istanbul
problem
and
how
we
would
like
Rhian,
strenght
files
and
and
then
I
think
the
other
really
interesting.
One
is
like
fakes
and
stuff
like
when
a
proxy
choir
and
that
kind
of
thing
so
I,
don't
know
it's
a
really
value
like
I.
D
Think
it's
the
sort
of
thing
where
we
like
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that
it's
possible
and
Brad's
point
whether
this
is
tooling
above
for
something
like
just
rating
down
are
the
needs
of
the
tool
in
community
I
think
is
really
valuable.
I
have
a
point,
a
point,
a
little
further
down
the
list
about
test
coverage
and
how
they,
like
the
communities
just
noticing.
D
Now
that
test
coverage
doesn't
work
quite
as
well
in
ESM
because,
like
it
doesn't
become
obvious
until
ESM
starts
to
get
adoption
and
I
think
we
could
be
in
a
similar
position
with
some
other
things
like
proxying.
So
you
know
like
getting
ahead
of
that
curve
and
being
able
to
tell
folks
how
we're
gonna
do
it
before
it's
just
people
complaining
that
they
can't
do
it
I
think
it's
valuable.
E
D
So
maybe
just
like
centering
our
centering.
The
conversation
around
that
like
this
is
the
need.
The
tool
in
community
has
we
have
these
like
sometimes
need
to
swap
dependencies
out
last
minute
for
unit
testing.
I
use
I,
certainly
use
proxy
Clare
at
work.
I
mean
I
really
can
Center
the
conversation
around
that
might
be
smart,
I
think
that's
not
smart.
A
A
E
E
A
D
E
D
Yeah
I'm
willing
about
it.
It
sounds
like
there's
a
lot
of
conversation
happening
around
just
hooks
in
general.
Right
now,
only
see
where
that
conversation
goes
close
this
one
for
now
and
then
split
out
some
other
conversations.
If
once
we
know
the
scope
of
that,
instead
I
I'm
happy
with
hosing
it
for
now,
I'd.
A
A
A
A
So
yeah
I
still
have
to
go
through
and
do
that
and
then
but
but
I'll
do
that
with
the
idea
now
that
it
it
doesn't
have
to
be,
you
know
another,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
in
a
vendor
matter
right
it
doesn't.
We
don't
have
to
piggyback
on
the
same
API
and
add
yet
another
event,
maybe
there's
a
better
way
to
do
it
and
then
once
I've
done
that
you
know,
maybe
that's
a
good.
A
D
D
D
E
A
D
D
It
kind
of
pushes
itself
to
the
top
of
the
signal,
listeners,
I,
think
and
that's
less
code
and
I
thought
it
was
right
yeah,
but
it
basically
just
has
a
few
big
long
lists
of
signal
handlers
that
it
kept
track
it
that
it
listens
to
like
it
has
a
different
list
for
Windows
than
for
Linux,
and
it
iterates
over.
All
of
them
creates
a
listener
on
all
of
them
and
then
fires.
Your
callback,
just
like,
as
if
you'd
attached,
a
callback
to
process
exit.
A
D
I
think
it's
spawn
rap
I
was
thinking
of
it
that
does
like
tons
of
operating
system
stuff,
like
signal
exit,
looks
actually
the
only
weird
stuff.
It's
doing.
I
think
is
overriding
really
exit
which
probably
users
shouldn't
be
using,
because
there's
X
there's
process
not
exit
and
then
process
that
really
exit
that
you
can
use.
A
Okay,
okay,
cool
I'm,
gonna
move
on
is
that
Alright
source
map
stuff.
D
I
mean
we
landed,
we
landed
all
the
workaround
source
Maps
working
for
that
nice
little
snippet
of
code.
I
think
I
might
have
mentioned
that
in
the
last
meeting,
I
haven't
removed
the
experimental
flag,
yet
I'm
I
still
intend
to
and
I'm
giving
a
talk
on
it.
I'd
opened
Jeff's
world.
That
summarizes
how
you
use
the
flag
to
try
to
get
more
folks
knowing
about
it.
A
G
D
Think
it
would
work
in
production
like
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
a
major
performance
hit
and
the
performance
hits
as
the
modules
are
initially
loaded.
So
once
your
applications
that
up
and
running
you're,
not
you
shouldn't,
see
significant
increases
in
performance
and
it
doesn't
hit
any
of
the
source
map
logic
until
a
stack
trace
is
actually
happening,
at
which
point
it
does
it
at
the
last
second,
as
the
stack
trace
is
generated,
so
the
main
reason
that's
behind
a
flag.
D
G
Were
the
reason
I
asked
we
were
debating
trying
it
at
work
like
some
tools
like
APM
type
tools,
let
you
upload
source
maps,
so
they
can
do
the
mapping
for
you
when
you
send
them
an
exception
and
some
don't
and
so
we're
kind
of
debating
like.
Would
it
be
easier
to
just
turn
this
on
in
the
service
itself,
I.
D
D
Appreciate
you
trying
it
out
and
giving
feedback
use,
use
Express
right
in
some
places,
because
I
think
I
expressed
you
overrides
the
prepare
stack
trace
itself,
so
I
think
it's
they
don't
conflict,
but
you'll
be
using
expresses
not
nodes,
but
in
a
non
Express
environment,
give
it
a
try,
okay
and
then,
if
performance
looks
good
with
it.
Maybe
that
can
come
back
to
this
meeting
and
maybe
we
can
consider
making
it
not
behind
a
flag
like
maybe
we
decide
to
take
that
on.
That
would
probably
have
to
be
interesting
to
be
sure.
D
D
A
We
have
like
four
minutes
left,
just
FYI
can
I
move
on
or
anything
else
on
this
one
all
right
so
argument,
parsing
yeah
we're
supposed
to
meet
about
that.
We
haven't
met
about
that,
but
I
was
I'm
supposed
to
give
a
workshop
on
MOCA
and
I
needed
some
example
code
and
so
I
wrote
an
implementation
of
this.
A
But
what
Ben
and
I
had
discussed
in
this
link
there
and
just,
and
so
it's
just
like
a
dumb
little
function
and
that's
all
it
does,
but
yeah
we
should
probably
meet
and
and
just
kind
of
finalize
like
what
we
you
know.
What
we
want
to
do
is
what
we
want
to
do
is.
Is
that
am
I?
Am
I
right
is
that
is
that,
what's
going
on
here,
yeah.
D
A
D
Feedback,
I've
got
it,
I
don't
think
it
sucks,
but
it's
certainly
not
as
good
as
Istanbul
and
Corey's
been
saying
this
for
months
and
I've
known
it
indefinitely.
It's
just
the
like
deviates
implemented
differently
in
Istanbul
is
a
little
more
accurate.
So
it's
cool
it's
exciting.
To
hear
that
Corey
is,
will
have
it
working
with
TSM
soon.
I
think
that's
great,
but
I
have
been
trying
to
push
on
the
v8
folks
a
little
bit
as
well
to
see
if
we
can
close
some
of
the
deltas,
because
it
is
some
people
are
relying
on
it.
D
C
A
D
A
Right,
so
our
time
is
up,
but
one
last
thing
is
that
so
I'm
going
to
go
and
see
if
we
can
get
a
session
at
the
collab
summit,
which
is
again
a
virtual
conference
thing,
it's
just
kind
of
sprinkled
around
I,
don't
know
like
open
Jess
we're
all
it
happens
as
part
of
it
happens
at
the
same
time
or
something
so
I'm
gonna
see
if
we
can
get
a
session,
and
if
we
had
a
session,
then
I
will
post
an
issue
or
otherwise
alert
people
to
that.
But
I.