Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
87 lines (76 loc) · 4.36 KB

2017-03-13.md

File metadata and controls

87 lines (76 loc) · 4.36 KB

Node.js LTS meeting 13 March 2017

Present

  • Michael Dawson (@mhdawson)
  • Myles Borins (@MylesBorins)
  • James Snell (@jasnell)
  • Jeremiah Senkpiel (@fishrock123)
  • Gibson Fahnestock (@gibfahn)

Agenda

  • Potential Semver Minor Backports #177
  • Should we consider swapping the timeframe for Active LTS and maintenance #130
  • Managing floating V8 patches #111
  • Backporting WG #184

Minutes

Potential Semver Minor Backports #177

  • These have already landed, minor went out 2 weeks ago
  • Need to create newer list, to review next meeting.

Should we consider swapping the timeframe for Active and Maintenance #130

  • Myles: seems like longer Active was useful, so he's ok with keeping as it for now
  • James: have been some calls to have longer LTS period (5 year period), this is a request for a longer overall LTS period as opposed to changing the split. But probably points to us not wanting to shorten the active period.
  • Jeremiah - suggested we might be able to let more changes into Maintenance. If no request will just do critical/security fixes. Could allow other changes on request at the discretion of the LTS team.
  • James/Michael - we could allow on request. Maintenance, we do not do it actively but if somebody wanted to backport we could land, not necessarily create a release. Would be limited to patch.
  • Michael ok, but limited to releases that are not EOL. Myles should not land unless we are going to do a release.
  • If we do takes more changes into Maintenance phase, when will builds actually go out. Mostly in the past those have been for security releases, and we don't include any other changes with those, so when would the changes go in ?
  • Myles, possibly if in Maintenance mode, if we accept PRs outside the critical ones, then we should have a release once/quarter.

Next actions:

  • leave Active/Maintenance as is for now
  • open new issue to better define release schedule, this might include release 1/quarter once in Maintenance. For scheduled minors, might just be where it would be if the minor is needed. Myles will take action to open issue, it will include proposed release schedule template.

Managing floating V8 patches [#111]#111)

  • Myles: This has been pretty much under control. Ali(@ofrobots) has created good backporting guide. What was not resolved in this issue was how we manage v8. We had discussed having nodejs/v8 tree, but we are still just floating in the node repo. https://github.com/nodejs/v8 exists but Myles does not believe we are using as a staging group. Seems ok now as we don't need an extra stage of indirection until we have tooling to automate the flow. Ali has the TODO on a proposal for using the nodejs/v8 repo. Remove from lts-agenda until there is more progress in issue.

Backporting WG #184

  • Myles (open issue on main repo 11099 request to add guide for backporting PRs. Has evolved from documenting existing process to people defining new process.
  • other info, turns out to be just as easy to audit without labels, just audit everything, and just use tag to mark those that are blocked on something.
  • Myles suggesting that we have separate WG, they would define process and commit to spend time to do the backports. Each person should donate 10-15 hours/month.
  • Michael, is that document useful for when we ask people to do backport because it did not land cleanly.
  • Jeremiah, doc was supposed to cover all release branches, but current versus LTS releases may be different.
  • Myles, process really should be the same, same meta data etc.
  • Generally we are agreed, that a team for backporting would make sense.

Next actions:

  • Volunteers, James, Gibson, Myles, Sam (10 hours each ?)
  • Myles will send out email to arrange time.