doc: add minutes for meeting 13 June 2018 #552
Conversation
|
Raw cut/paste will look later if needs fixup or others can fixup by pushing commits. |
|
@nodejs/tsc still need at least one review. |
meetings/2018-06-13.md
Outdated
| namespace | ||
| * TC39 is also looking into namespaces as a language feature, advice from committee was | ||
| not to wait for it (there are no proposals now, likely more than a year out). | ||
| * Can’t just be a directory, security concern about modules that don’t have the namespace |
| * Let’s leave on the agenda. | ||
| * Anna, may make sense to ask if we have enough engagement from those outside the our | ||
| bubble. | ||
| * single sentence question -> should node namespace modules? along with context. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So what are the action items here? Last time it was “wait a week and revisit”
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the next action is to continue the discussion in the issue tracker. There is no clear consensus in the TSC members one way or the other. In addition, I don't think there was the consensus that we needed to rush and have a vote either as the feeling is that there is still work to be done as part of our consensus seeking model. In particular, I think I remember a request to better frame the pros/cons and move people toward a shared understanding (for example it being harder to add modules is seen but a con by some and a pro by others). If anybody else had some details on next actions to add please comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to add, the week before not enough people had reviewed the issue to have a discussion, this time there was a good discussion, but not one that resulted in a decision one way or the other or agreement it had reached the point were a vote was appropriate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I'm hoping to have is a TSC discussion that some kind of "non-bare" identifier is needed for all new core modules.
The details of that certainly can be hashed out in GitHub.
meetings/2018-06-13.md
Outdated
| * Proposal for guidance on adding new APIs | ||
|
|
||
| * OpenSSL Evolution | ||
| * Pull request 21282, would some some additional opinion. Security issue with CVE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure what that first sentence is supposed to be (would some some additional opinion should be....something else, but what?)
meetings/2018-06-13.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| * Workers | ||
| * Not too much new since PR landed, may include in next 10.x release (it is behind a flag) | ||
| * incorning out minor issues. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
incorning? I'm guessing that shluld be Working?
meetings/2018-06-13.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| * Proposal: add all new core modules under a scope? (too late for http2) [#389](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/389) | ||
| * Myles, we need namespaces and we need to move on faster than we have to. Every | ||
| time we add something new have have the shadowing issue with npm |
meetings/2018-06-13.md
Outdated
| * Have gotten through a larger number of the use cases | ||
| * PR open for meta require | ||
| * Starting to talk about deadlines | ||
| * Main contentious topics is about transparent interop, module specifier resolution |
meetings/2018-06-13.md
Outdated
| * Starting to talk about deadlines | ||
| * Main contentious topics is about transparent interop, module specifier resolution | ||
| * Package name maps proposal from Domenic, to allow install time tooling to generate | ||
| manifest to be consume by browser to allow bare imports. May provide path to being |
meetings/2018-06-13.md
Outdated
| * Jeremiah only move to namespaces once. Also align with returning promisified APIs. | ||
| * Myles that could be a 11/2 year to 2 years from now. | ||
| * Let’s leave on the agenda. | ||
| * Anna, may make sense to ask if we have enough engagement from those outside the our |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left a bunch of nits, but I'm OK with this landing with or without them addressed. @ljharb's questions should be answered, but that can happen in the comments here rather than in the doc itself. (Probably better if it's in the doc itself.)
(Basically, taking minutes is a thankless job so I'm not going to demand ccorrections/improvements. These minutes as they are stand as an improvement over what we have now, which is no notes at all.)
| * TC39 is also looking into namespaces as a language feature, advice from committee was | ||
| not to wait for it (there are no proposals now, likely more than a year out). | ||
| * Can’t just be a directory, security concern about versions that don’t have the namespace as | ||
| people coule publish modules with the same name in those versions and they could be used |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not, in fact, any more of a concern than new bare core modules - a namespace on npm is a user - and node would own whatever user it was, so it would be impossible for anyone to publish a module under that namespace.
No description provided.