From 078b968ea96bbdceb04dca92d19a08479b48af73 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Dawson Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] doc: add meeting 10 Jan 2024 Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson --- meetings/2024-01-10.md | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 125 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meetings/2024-01-10.md diff --git a/meetings/2024-01-10.md b/meetings/2024-01-10.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..88726fcd --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2024-01-10.md @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2024-01-10 + +## Links + +* **Recording**: +* **GitHub Issue**: + +## Present + +* Yagiz Nizipli @anonrig (voting member) +* Geoffrey Booth @GeoffreyBooth (voting member) +* Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (voting member) +* Chengzhong Wu @legendecas (voting member) +* Matteo Collina @mcollina (voting member) +* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (voting member) +* Moshe Atlow @MoLow (voting member) +* Richard Lau @richardlau (voting member) +* Robert Nagy @ronag (voting member) +* Ruy Adorno @ruyadorno (voting member) + +## Agenda + +### Announcements + +* Richard, Ulises did a release for Node.js 20 + +### CPC and Board Meeting Updates + +*Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting. + +* Travel fund is most relevant discussion. Board has asked that the rules for the fund be + revamped. Things are progressing fast as we want to have them in place. +* Still waiting on news on the room for collaborator summit in London + * Track for Node.js is still in play, conference has room for the track + +### nodejs/node + +* Revisiting `globalThis` as an `EventTarget` [#51372](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/51372) + * No clear conclusion in the discussion yet. On agenda because the TSC will need to make a + Decision at some point. Not yet at that point but will likely end up in a vote. It is SemVer + major PR so will need to make decision by Feb ish. + +* Inconsistent behavior of nextTick and queueMicrotask [#51156](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/51156) + * Robert - Have not had too much time to pursue, but have opened a few PRs which are + progressing + * Second one is to add as experimental, Matteo what did you see with breakage + * Matteo, from what I saw breakage was extensive + * Robert the only way forward is to add another new API, deprecate next tick to discourage + future use. + * Can remove from agenda at this point. + +* enable corepack by default [#50963](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/50963) + * Yagiz, have not seen to many changes needed for a while so seems stable, likely that we + should make a decision on making it stable or if that is not going to enable by default then + we should remove. If we don’t enable by default then we don’t have a path to removing npm. + * Matteo, shipping a package manager by default is one of the key elements of what made + Node.js successful. Don’t see a good technical reason to migrate them out. Advantage of + shipping npm, is on stability of the build. One issue is loss of repeatable builds + * Michael, main point is if goal of people in making stable is a step towards removing npm, + then that is the discussion we should have versus making it stable and kicking that down + the road. + * Yagiz, recommend that we either remove npm or add other package managers,. + * Robert, whatever we do, removing npm is not an option, then leads do we discuss adding + package manager managers + * Yagiz why can we not remove npm + * Geoffrey, would be large breaking change + * Robert, not worth it for political issue + * Yagiz, should we not reduce the bundle size + * Richard, unlikely to get a consensus. We will likely need a vote. + * Matteo, propose we remove npm from corepack, then enable corepack by default. If we + Have a vote lets vote on removing npm, versus vote on corepack. + * Geoffrey, if the goal is to offer bundle size, don’t we offer additional binaries. + * Yagiz, if vote is removal of npm it should include alternative of adding more package + managers + * Robert, does it even makes sense to have corepack if we are not going to remove npm + * Matteo, if you enable corepack, then typing pnpm it just works its great. But when using + corepack you don’t get a clear picture of the match between Node.js and package manager + installed. + * Richard, the issue around not knowing what you get. Original version only installed a specific + version. The project requested that it pull in latest. + * Vote + * We agree our goal is to remove npm from Node.js: Yes/No + * If we are not going to remove npm, should corepack be included in Node.js Yes/No + * Should we enable corepack by default today: Yes/No + * Geoffrey, we don’t necessarily need to rush into decision. Would be good to get how popular + is corepack + * Ruy, definitely going to be a large breaking change + * Geoffrey, the person who wants to champion removal of npm should write up proposal and + then we vote on that. + * Ruy, has been mentioned that distributing npm as are of corepack might not be legally ok. + * Michael, probably should not make corepack stable until we resolve issue around direction on npm. + +* lib: promote process.binding/_tickCallback to runtime deprecation [#50687](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/50687) + * Joyee has issue, please jump in there. + +* The env var `NODE_V8_COVERAGE` intermittently causes the process to hang [#49344](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/49344) + * Richard, there is a PR that addresses this on main. + * Issue should be fixed. + +* lib: rewrite AsyncLocalStorage without async_hooks [#48528](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/48528) + * Requires a patch to V8, the V8 teams reluctant to accept the patch + * Joyee - ask was whether we could float the patch + * Feedback in the PR seems to be that we should wait until V8 accepts in upstream + * Chengzhong, V8 team has discussed removing the API it uses, so there would be more we’d + have to float. + * Michael, seems very risk to float a large patch especially if underlying APIs it needs are + Removed + * Geoffrey, what is the alternative? + * Joyee, people are working on AsyncContext + * Geoffrey, but when? +* Chengzhong, hoping to make progress in 2024 +* Geoffrey, if it seems promising then waiting makes sense. + +### nodejs/admin + +* Events / Collaborator Summits for 2024 [#814](https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/814) + * No update yet. + +## Strategic Initiatives + +## Upcoming Meetings + +* **Node.js Project Calendar**: + +Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar. From 8770704d6a65b95ef49dfc569e4f77cbaaaac1bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Dawson Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:15:38 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] fix linter issues --- meetings/2024-01-10.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/meetings/2024-01-10.md b/meetings/2024-01-10.md index 88726fcd..06d7e94b 100644 --- a/meetings/2024-01-10.md +++ b/meetings/2024-01-10.md @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ *Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting. * Travel fund is most relevant discussion. Board has asked that the rules for the fund be - revamped. Things are progressing fast as we want to have them in place. + revamped. Things are progressing fast as we want to have them in place. * Still waiting on news on the room for collaborator summit in London * Track for Node.js is still in play, conference has room for the track @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ * Michael, main point is if goal of people in making stable is a step towards removing npm, then that is the discussion we should have versus making it stable and kicking that down the road. - * Yagiz, recommend that we either remove npm or add other package managers,. + * Yagiz, recommend that we either remove npm or add other package managers. * Robert, whatever we do, removing npm is not an option, then leads do we discuss adding package manager managers * Yagiz why can we not remove npm