►
From YouTube: 2022-03-09 Node.js Release Working 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
Sorry,
it
started
playing
back
at
me.
It
is
release
issue
830
on
the
ninjas
release
repository
on
GitHub
and
we
will
go
through
the
agenda,
but
to
start
are
there
any
announcements
anyone
would
like
to
make
here.
B
Yes,
so
I
did
post
in
the
slack
Channel,
but
just
in
case
anyone
else's
hasn't
seen
we've
just
oh
yesterday
we
we've
updated
the
website.
The
main
node.js
website
to
now
runs
on
next
to
us
as
part
of
that,
the
release
post
blog
script
that
we
use
to
generate
the
blog
post
releases
that
has
been
updated.
That
now
needs
node
18,
because
it's
using
native
fetch
instead
of
the
node
fetch
module
or
you
can
I
think
you
could
yeah.
B
You
should
be
able
to
run
node
16
with
the
experimental
fetch,
but
yeah
just
be
aware
of
that.
If
you're
doing
releases
it
did
appear
to
work
when
I
did
trial
runs
but
as
always
be
on
the
lookout
for
any
any
old
Behavior.
A
Thanks
Richard
any
other
announcements
to
make.
A
I
think
we
did
have
an
LTS
release
this
week.
1815.
Sorry
thanks
one
for
your
work
on
that
one,
so
that
one.
A
Worries,
it's
all
the
announcements
we
can
run
through
the
agenda.
I've
got
the
issue
open
and
the
first
item
on
it
is
confusion
around
some
minor
commits
I
think
we
discussed
this
last
time
and
I
believe
I
opened
a
PR
to
node.js
node,
so
I'm
not
sure.
If
there's
anything
else
to
do
on
this.
Does
anyone
else
have
any
recollection
of
what's
to
do
here.
C
Yeah
I
think
we
can
close
it
once
we
decide
that
all
the
silver
measures
sender
miners
would
be
considered
notable.
A
Okay
sounds
good,
I'll
link,
the
pr
that's
now
landed
into
there
and
say:
hey
we've
clarified
this
in
our
documentation,
closing
but
feel
free
to
add
any
further
feedback
and
I
think
we
can
remove
it
from
the
agenda.
A
And
I'm
gonna
skip
past
the
schedule,
so
I
can
go
through
all
of
those
when
I'm
showing
my
screen.
The
next
item
on
the
list
is
plans
for
npm
9..
That's
shipped
I,
don't
know.
If
there's
anything
anyone
would
like
to
share
or
discuss
on
that
today.
A
A
Okay,
I
can
just
add
a
comment
to
that
effect.
I'm
not
sure
does
it.
It
needs
to
remain
on
the
agenda
for
next
time.
If,
if
that's
our
approach,
we'll
just
have
to
wait
for
that
discussion
to
happen.
Fortunately
we
have
time
I
guess
there
won't
be
updating
again
until
October
November
time
so.
A
Also,
now
going
to
skip
down
to
the
node.js
release,
Keys
issue,
which
says
v18
and
19
assigned
by
a
public
key,
not
captured
in
this
key
room.
B
So
I
did
see
that
when
we,
when,
when
the
pr904
one's
key
that
the
the
key
ring
was
updated,
so
I
guess
we
just
need
to
make
sure
that
everyone
else's
key
is
in
the
key
ring.
And
then
we
can
probably
close
that,
although
I
think
I
saw
did
someone
post
something
saying
the
key
once
key
wasn't
self-signed
when
I
misremembering
I.
B
But
yeah
we
did
update
the
the
key
ring
was
updated
at
least
for
one's
key,
so
I
I
can't
remember
the
versions
being
inflicting
the
issue.
That's
on
the
agenda,
just
maybe
figure
out
who
signed
those
and
check
that
those
keys
were
in
the
key
ring
because
I
think
there's
a
script,
there's
a
script
to
run
to
add
keys,
and
that
does
update
the
key
ring.
But
if
you
just
add
the
keys
manually,
you
may
you
know
Mis
easily
missed
the
step
of
updating
the
keyring.
A
Okay,
I
can
I
can
take
a
look
and
see
if
I
can
run
for
all
the
keys
and
check
that
they're
in
the
key
ring.
I,
don't
mind
doing
that.
Taking
that
action
to
try
that
out,
I
have
to
admit
the
the
comment
I
just
linked
I,
don't
like
when
I
ran
that
command
I
didn't
get
the
error
about
it,
not
being
self-signed,
so
I'm,
not
I,
don't
particularly
follow
why
what
the
difference
is
so
I
might
need
to
dig
into
that.
One.
A
B
C
And
that
I
think
very
I
think
did
that
for
the
for
the
previous
pull
request,
the
one
that
you
mentioned
in
the
in
the
in
the
comments.
B
Yeah,
so
so
it's
just
a
question
of
the
the
other
issue.
That's
actually
on
the
agenda.
That
was
some
historical
releases
and
I
I
can't
remember
who
signed
those.
So
it's
just
a
case
of
just
checking
that
those
keys
are
now
in
the
key
ring
and
if
not,
there's
some
outstanding
work.
I
guess
for
us
to
look
at.
B
A
The
key
ring
I
guess
for
people's
verification
to
work
and
that
leads
into
the
whole
discussion
around
key
signing
and
revoking
keys
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
E
A
So
before
we
go
through
the
schedules,
are
there
any
other
topics?
Folks
would
like
to
raise
on
this
court
I.
C
Have
one
related
to
my
draft
pull
request
I
opened
a
while
ago,
let
me
find
it
is
to
include
the
security
prepare
in
the
git
node
in
the
core
YouTubes
right,
and
one
thing
that
was
missing
is:
do
it
in
two
steps?
Basically
dash
dash
continue
or
something
like
that
and
well.
I
I
took
a
look,
I
did
an
investigation
and
well
we
can
do
it,
but
it
seems
too
much
work
for
something
that
we
will
remove
pretty
soon.
C
Once
we
have
the
git
node
land
for
security,
Secret
Patches,
so
I,
don't
I
mean
I
didn't
have
time
to
keep
going
with
it,
but
Maybe
we
we
can
land
it
the
way
that
I
mentioned
in
the
in
the
pull
request
and
and
then
once
we
have
the
git
node
land
private.
We
will
just
substitute
and
the
the
two
steps
will
not
be
needed.
A
Yes,
that
seems
fair,
is
it
easily
testable
as
it
is
like?
Have
you
like?
Could
I
build
up
a
mock
proposal
and
it
build
up.
B
Yeah
I
think
I
did
for
the
last
round
of
security
releases
and
I
think
now
from
memory
it
didn't
update
the
main
change
law
or
it
didn't
index
one
of
the
releases.
So
so,
when
you
put
the
new
thing
in
the
blog
post,
there's
an
index
that
gets
updated
in
the
table
of
contents
on
one
of
the
files
and
I
can't
remember
which
one
it
was,
whether
it
was
the
main
one
or
the
top
of
the
changelog
for
the
version.
B
B
Obvious
that
when
you
run
when
you
ran
the
test
Suite
that
there's
a
test
now
that
says
that
it
checks
for
consistency
between
the
links
and
it
did
flag
that
there
was
a
table
of
content
entry.
That
was
missing
so.
E
B
C
I
did
it
for
for
90
thing
as
well
and,
as
you
said,
I
think
there
is
a
bug.
I
think
in
in
the
comment
message
is
still
missing
and
the
comment
message
is
also
missing:
the
the
changes
it's
just
creating
their
regular
commit
message.
If
I
remember
correctly
so
yeah
I
will
create
some
packs,
but
once
we
agree
that
we
don't
necessarily
need
the
two-step
with
dash
dash,
continue,
I
think
it
will
be
very
easily
to
to
fix
and
test.
B
Yeah,
okay
sounds
good
I
think
in
general
it'll
be.
It
would
be
good
for
medical
utils
if
the
different
parts
could
be
runnable
independently
and
then
for
convenience
have
like
commands
that
do
the
whole
lot.
Just
because
things
like
regeneration,
the
change
logs
is
something
that
I
sort
of
do
quite
a
few
times
in
the
release
and
I.
Don't
need
all
the
rest
of
the
yeah
there's
a
bit
of
the
commands
where
they
sort
of
go
and
look
for
commits
to
land
I.
B
B
Of
on
the
side
kind
of
decides
to
to
this
issue,
but
yeah,
it's
good
to
have
sort
of
commands
which
run
through
and
automate
several
steps.
But
it
would
also
be
good
if
we
could
just
run
single
steps.
Yeah,
considering
the
the
state
yeah.
C
Take
yeah
someone
wants
to
pick
it
up.
You
can
assign
me
I'm
one.
A
C
A
But
that
sounds
it
sounds
like
if
I
could,
just
like
type
change
log,
only
or
whatever
command,
and
it
just
regenerates
the
change
look
I
think
that
would
help
any
release
as
well.
Not
only
security
it'd
be
great,
so.
A
And
let's
create
an
issue
and
hopefully
do
it
at
some
point.
B
And
while
I
remember,
I,
think
I
think
it
was
Antoine
he's
opened
an
issue
on
no
Courier
tools
to
remove
the
bit
that
there's
a
bit
no
call
utils.
That
up
looks
for
deprecation
tags
and
updates
deprecation
tag
numbers.
So
there's
a
PR
to
remove
that
from
no
call
utils,
because
main
the
brain
branch
and
versions
back
to
16,
there's
now
a
test
for
the
deprecation
numbers.
So
it
should
be.
B
It
should
be
correct
on
Landing
and
shouldn't
make
its
way
so,
especially
if
you're,
using
the
commit
queue
on
the
main
branch.
The
commute
queue,
obviously
shouldn't
be
landing
things
that
haven't
had
an
assigned
application
number,
but
it
does
mean
that
14
would
be
exposed,
but
I'm
kind
of
okay
with
forcing
being
exposed,
given
that
it's
more
or
less
my
most
end
of
life
and
I
highly
doubt
I'll
add
a
new
deprecation
to
note
14
now,
but
just
for
awareness
there
is
that
proposal
to
drop
that
particular
check
from
medical
retails.
B
No
I
think
it
was
just
for
awareness
that
that
this
this
check
is
going
to
be
removed
and
yeah
I
think
it's
if
we
find
for
all
the
releases
other
than
14
but
I
think
for
14,
which
is
we're
not
going
to
do
much
anyway,
but
just
to
be
aware
of
in
case
anything
does
come
up.
C
All
right-
oh
I,
I,
think
I
forgot
to
mention
here.
I
mentioned
yesterday
in
the
DSC
call,
but
I'm
planning
to
do
the
cutoff
of
node.js20
in
the
end
of
this
month,
like
April
1st
maximum,
and
if
someone
asks
for
it
or
should
I
update
any
any
document
about
that
or.
A
A
B
A
B
A
Dropped
December
major
cutoff
because
it
like
at
least
I
found
over
the
years.
It
ended
up
being
a
a
let's.
Have
this
thing,
but
every
single
thing
that
lands
after
that's
major,
gets
approved
to
go
in
anyway,
so
it
didn't
really
have
much
impact
and
in
terms
of
simplifying
the
release
process,
it
was
just
like,
let's
just
keep
in
sync,
with
Maine
and
Mirror,
to
main
for
as
long
as
possible
and
then
Branch
off
maybe
a
week
before,
or
maybe
we
could
change
that
to
two
weeks
before.
B
Yes,
so
we
are
going
to
move
compiling
the
GCC
binaries
to
compile
node
20
of
gc20
I
did
land
a
PR
to
the
configure
scripts,
so
the
configure
scripts
were
won,
but
I
need
to
go
around
the
build,
build
servers
and
make
sure
gc10
is
on
there
and
that
the
compiler
selector
script
actually
picks
GCC
10
for
no
20
and
later
I.
Don't
remember
where
we
are.
There
was
a
PR
or
a
issue
talking
about
moving
to
C
plus
plus.
B
C
B
D
D
B
Ulysses
discussed
may
be
dropping
Mac,
OS
1015,
so
that
might
be
something
to
look
at
and
then
there
was
something
else
that
I
just
thought
of
that
I've.
Never
gotten.
D
B
B
Yeah
is
that
not
tier
three
or
it's
pretty
low
down
I
remember
there
was
an
issue
saying
they
wanted
it.
Someone
wanted
it
bumps
up,
but
I
think
it
was
at
the
lowest
tier,
but
yeah
I
mean
we
can
look
at
that
yeah,
the
one
that
I
remember
is
I.
Think
the
discussion
about
dropping
Windows,
32-bits,
stalled,
I,
don't
know
where
that
got
to
so
so
there
was
an
issue
saying
maybe
yeah.
B
So
yeah
that
might
be
another
thing
to
to
chase
up
on,
but
yeah
yes,
you're
right.
We
do
need
to
review
the
the
platform
requirements
and
anything
that
requires
build
changes
in
terms
of
stuff
on
the
CIO
things
installed
in
the
machines.
We
need
to
identify
soonish
so
that
we
can
get
them
up
and
running
ahead
of
yep
ahead
of
the
release.
Next
week,.
A
I,
don't
think
so.
Sorry,
I
was
just
replied
on
the
topic
of
new
automationy
things.
I,
don't
think
it
ever
made
its
way
onto
the
agenda,
so
it
didn't
need
to,
but
just
mentioned
the
proposal
for
adding
a
notable
change
bot.
A
B
I'm
not
interested
inclined
to
go
for.
Wasn't
there
something
else
that
came
up
that
someone
said
well
I
say
someone's,
probably
you
suggested
we
could
also
do
a
sort
of
tagging
comment.
B
B
So
I
I
might
as
being
fine
to
to
you
know
if
you,
whoever
was
like
doing
it
to
PR
that
and
unless
pra
as
a
sort
of
General.
This
is
the
mechanism
and
here's
a
concrete
example
of
how
we
would
use
it.
Yeah.
A
They
should
be
the
same
I
guess
so
yeah
like
a
lot.
The
mechanism
is
already
there
because
when
we
add
fast
track,
it
posts
a
comment
saying:
hey
someone's
had
fast
track,
so
I'll,
just
I'll
just
take
a
look
and
see
what
it
will
take.
Yeah.
B
B
B
Yes,
some
either
an
eye
catcher
or
you
know
their
comments
of
a
particular
type
or
I.
You
know
how
would
we
identify
the
comments
because
I
presume
we
don't
necessarily
want
to
walk
through
some
of
it.
Some
of
the
issues
have
like
hundreds
of
comments.
I.
A
A
First
attempt
anyway,
okay,
so
I
will
switch
gears
and
try
and
share
for
the
schedules.
Now,
let's
quickly
go
through
those.
E
A
Did
someone
confirm
you're,
seeing
the
release
19
plan
just
to
make
sure
I'm
sharing
the
correct?
Yes,.
A
Great
perfect,
so
where
are
we
around
here.
C
Yeah,
it
was
supposed
to
be
this
week,
but,
as
I
mentioned
in
this
in
this
issue,
I
couldn't
make
it
so
I
switched
it
with
Michael
and
I
think
he
would
do
the
the
19.8
next
week
and
I
will
do
one
week
after.
A
Okay
sounds
good,
and
do
we
want
to
keep
the
one
in
early
April?
The
reason
I
asked
this
is
like
the
less
we
put
in
the
last
19.
The
more
ends
up
in
the
node
20.
D
E
B
A
So
to
have
two
weeks
of
extra
content,
so
we
could
keep
this
one
or
we
could
drop
it
either.
C
Well,
probably
I
can
do
this
release,
but
it
would
be
a
bit
delayed.
I'll
be
back
from
from
travel
this
day,
so
I
I,
don't
think
I'll
be
able
to
to
prepare
or
or
land
so.
A
Oh,
and
that
will
be
hopefully
our
last
90
if
there
are
no
surprises.
Oh
sounds
good,
more
scheduled,
node
18.
So
one
put
one
out:
eight
fifteen
zero.
We
do
have
another
one
for
March,
any
thoughts
there,
maybe
bump
it
to
early
April.
B
A
A
I
think
keep
it,
and
until
until
someone
puts
their
name
next
to
it,
maybe
they
can
adjust
the
dates
to
suit
their
availability.
A
They
soldering
there
for
to
add
some
more
I
might
be
able
to
do
this
one,
but
if
I
do
this
one,
it
will
likely
be
the
week
later
and
April
I'll.
Add
my
name:
if
I
find
it
hard
to
do
that.
F
A
F
B
It's
an
npm
update,
eight,
something
eight
something
npma.
So
there's
an
npma
update.
That's
got
a
PR,
open,
I,
think
it's
landable
I,
believe
it
passed
the
tests.
So
someone
or
a
couple
of
people
have
been
asking
because
it's
true
it's
one
of
those
audit
triggering
things
where
scanners
are
picking
up
dependencies
and
then
this
npm
update
should
update
some
of
those
dependencies.
E
B
I
think
there
may
also
be
a
back
Port
open
for
16
for
some
of
the
test.
Runner
stuff,
okay,
I
think
it
was
open
when
I
did
the
last
16
release
the
last
non-security
16
release,
but
it
hadn't
it
hadn't
sort
of
been
in
current
for
long
enough
to
take
it
back
into
into
the
into
that
16
release
at
the
time
so
I
mean
the
test.
The
test
run
has
had
a
lot
of
changes
going
into
it,
so
yeah
I'll
be
filtering,
what's
eligible
to
come
back
and
what?
What
isn't.
A
Yeah
as
we're
in
maintenance,
what
kind
of
stance
are
we
taking
on
that?
Like.
B
So
the
things
we
have
already
landed
the
test,
Runner
right,
that
landed
in
the
last
release
before
16
went
into
maintenance,
so
it
only
just
made
it
in,
and
the
one
thing
that
I'm,
not
sure
of
is
some
of
the
test.
Runner
stuff
is
seems
to
be
related
to
some
of
the
watching
stuff.
You
know,
like
the
the
sort
of
no,
no,
no
demon
note
monitor
equivalent
the
file
watching
things
and
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
disentangle.
B
The
two
I
think
so:
I
I,
don't
I
I'm,
not
really
sure,
but
I
think
the
test.
Runner
is
experimental
and
the
question
then,
is
other
changes
Scopes
to
the
test
Runner
or
are
they
bleeding
out
into
any
other
bit
of
the
release?
But
yeah
I
mean
had
it
not
landed?
Had
it
not
already
landed,
I
would
probably
have.
B
Any
of
the
testimony
stuff
but
have
given
that
we
had
landed
the
test
run
and
stuff.
It
almost
seems
that
you
know
the
fixes
that
were
that
were
being
mooted
were
kind
of
major
enough
that
if
you
were
going
to
use
it
I'm.
A
B
So
I
can
imagine.
For
example,
someone
might
suggest
supporting
the
reporters
which
I
would
class
as
a
feature,
but
again
I.
Don't
know
how
disruptive
it
would
be
or
again
whether
it
be
completely
localized.
B
B
It's
I
find
it
a
little
bit
hard
to
keep
up
with
the
test.
Runner
changes
because
there's
a
lot
of
activity
going
on
on
it
and
even
the
the
pull
request
to
Market
stable
in
no
20.
That's
been
sort
of
there's
been
discussions
about.
You
know
what
what
has
landed,
what
hasn't
landed?
What
might
land
that
you
know
might
be
December
major
in
terms
of
the
test
Runner.
B
So
there's
lots
of
different
aspects
of
the
test.
Runner
and
I'm,
not
I,
can't
remember
what
has
and
hasn't
landed
in
16
and
of
the
stuff
that
hasn't
landed
without
looking
I'm,
not
sure
how
disruptive
it
would
be.
B
Yeah
I
think
it's
just
about
it.
It's
a
balance.
You
know
to
just
try
and
work
out
and-
and
you
know,
if
it's
come
down
to
we-
you
know,
maybe
it's
separate
enough
that
you
know
nothing's
going
to
break
by
not
having
it.
You
know
like
the
test.
Runner
doesn't
necessarily
need
it
to
function.
It's
like,
like
you,
said
it's
a
it's
a
feature
rather
than
a
fix.
Then
maybe
you
can
make
the
call
to
say
you
know
yeah,
not
this
not
not
at
the
moment.
A
Okay,
I'll
see
what's
open,
I'll
build
up
I'll,
do
like
a
draft
proposal,
put
a
TBD
date
in
and
use
it
as
like
a
working
and
then
maybe
we
make
a
call
when
there's
enough
or
a
pushing
factor
to
ship
yeah.
B
A
And
then
we
have
14,
we
have
a
tentative
last
release
before
end
of
life.
We
like
to
do
some
like
cleanup
releases
to
leave
it
in
a
good
state,
but.
B
Yeah
I'm
wondering
whether
to
push
that
to
the
beginning
of
April,
but
not
too
far
into
April
I,
don't
know
it
depends
if
anyone
wants
to
volunteer
to
to
do
that.
I
I
probably
won't
have
time
this
month,
but
maybe
if
it's
April
I
might
depending
on
how
how
Builders
looking.
B
There's
definitely
not
an
npm
update
because
we've
just
updated
it
in
the
last
one.
I
honestly
can't
remember
I
I
honestly,
don't
know
if
there's
anything
actually
pending.
A
I
think
I
saw
some
minors
opened.
That
I
was
like.
Is
it
a
bit
early
to
go
through
and
say
chances?
Are
this
won't
land?
Let's
close
yeah.
B
I
think
there
was
one
at
least
one
that
was
closed.
I
can't
remember
what
it
was
about
now.
The
only
other
thing
I
might
do.
Is
we
again?
Maybe
this
comes
back
to
node,
20
or
even
current.
We
might
look
at
the
root
certificates
and
update
those
in
node
and
then
maybe
backplate
those
to
14.
Just
before
we
yep.
E
B
Of
life
but
I'm
halfway
I
have
like
half
a
half
a
change
to
automate
update
in
the
root
certificates.
So
if
I
had
time,
I
could
publish
that
often,
maybe
we
could
just
do
the
map.
The
update
manually
but
yeah
I
mean
that's
a
potential,
but
that
hasn't
landed
yet.
E
So
that's
a.
B
Potential
for
a
nodeful
team
release,
yeah
I
I,
think
it'll
be
better
for
us
to
plan
one,
and
then
you
know
if
we
don't
have
anything,
cancel
that
rather
than
forget
about
it.
I
guess
but
yeah
we
are
note.
14
is
end
of
life
at
the
end
of
April,
so
we're
probably
probably
aiming
for
One
release
and
then
you
know
hopefully
not
have
to
do
another.
One.
A
B
A
I
can
I
can
update
cool,
so
I
think
we're
scheduled.
So
we've
got
a
19
planned
for
next
week.
Then
we've
got
16
planned
towards
the
end
of
the
month
and
14
I'm
gonna
open.
Well
then,
what's
there
and
then
we
can
talk
about
the
date
when
we
see
how
much
it's
a
so
all
good
and
roughly
I
was
busy
with
the
note
20
release,
so
I
think
we're
all
set
any
other
business
today.
A
No
I
guess
one
thing
to
bear
in
mind:
maybe
we'll
post
it
in
slack
or
something
is
Roy
has
proposed
a
release
session.
So
maybe
we
should
start
thinking
of
ideas
of
what
we
may
want
to
discuss
there.
Any
particular
topics
or
anything
I'll
link
the
issue
into
the
minutes
better
than
that,
thanks
for
joining
everyone
and
speak
to
you
soon,.