New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc: add 2016-08-17 CTC meeting minutes #8245

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 7, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@joshgav
Member

joshgav commented Aug 24, 2016

Checklist
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

doc

Description of change

add 2016-08-17 CTC meeting minutes

closes #8125

/cc @nodejs/ctc

@Trott

View changes

Show outdated Hide outdated doc/ctc-meetings/2016-08-17.md
@Fishrock123: We should deprecate use without `new`, but deprecating entire constructor isn’t reasonable due to ecosystem usage.
@jasnell: It would be a hard deprecation warning, i.e. throw if used without `new`.

This comment has been minimized.

@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2016

Member

I think this isn't quite what @jasnell said. A hard deprecation will only print a warning and not throw unless the command line flag to throw on deprecated functions is used.

@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2016

Member

I think this isn't quite what @jasnell said. A hard deprecation will only print a warning and not throw unless the command line flag to throw on deprecated functions is used.

This comment has been minimized.

@joshgav

joshgav Aug 24, 2016

Member

Yeah, I was a bit confused here too. Will try to listen to the audio to clarify or may take out the line entirely if no one's opposed.

@joshgav

joshgav Aug 24, 2016

Member

Yeah, I was a bit confused here too. Will try to listen to the audio to clarify or may take out the line entirely if no one's opposed.

@Trott

View changes

Show outdated Hide outdated doc/ctc-meetings/2016-08-17.md
@jasnell: It would be a hard deprecation warning, i.e. throw if used without `new`.
@trott: That would imply full removal in v9.x.

This comment has been minimized.

@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2016

Member

That would imply full removal in v9.x at the earliest. (It's likely I wasn't very clear in my wording and/or was talking way too fast for anyone to understand me, since both of those are things I do any time I open my mouth.)

@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2016

Member

That would imply full removal in v9.x at the earliest. (It's likely I wasn't very clear in my wording and/or was talking way too fast for anyone to understand me, since both of those are things I do any time I open my mouth.)

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2016

Member

A couple of small notes, and I guess we really ought to note what the conclusion and/or next steps for the Revert "fs: add a temporary..." conversation was...

Otherwise, LGTM.

Member

Trott commented Aug 24, 2016

A couple of small notes, and I guess we really ought to note what the conclusion and/or next steps for the Revert "fs: add a temporary..." conversation was...

Otherwise, LGTM.

@joshgav

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joshgav

joshgav Aug 24, 2016

Member

@Trott

we really ought to note what the conclusion and/or next steps for the Revert "fs: add a temporary..." conversation was...

The conversation went too fast, I need to go back and listen to the audio, unless someone else can fill in?

Member

joshgav commented Aug 24, 2016

@Trott

we really ought to note what the conclusion and/or next steps for the Revert "fs: add a temporary..." conversation was...

The conversation went too fast, I need to go back and listen to the audio, unless someone else can fill in?

@MylesBorins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MylesBorins

MylesBorins Aug 24, 2016

Member

this should be revisited @isaacs landed a change into graceful-fs 3 that
fixes all issues regarding re evaluating. this should allow us to move
forward with all outstanding fs changes. I can give a report when I'm back
next week.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 8:00 PM Josh Gavant notifications@github.com wrote:

@Trott https://github.com/Trott

we really ought to note what the conclusion and/or next steps for the
Revert "fs: add a temporary..." conversation was...

The conversation went too fast, I need to go back and listen to the audio,
unless someone else can fill in?


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8245 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecVzV6giNfY3ckYHq1JarKLXnZs5jFks5qjKLzgaJpZM4JrmzC
.

Member

MylesBorins commented Aug 24, 2016

this should be revisited @isaacs landed a change into graceful-fs 3 that
fixes all issues regarding re evaluating. this should allow us to move
forward with all outstanding fs changes. I can give a report when I'm back
next week.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 8:00 PM Josh Gavant notifications@github.com wrote:

@Trott https://github.com/Trott

we really ought to note what the conclusion and/or next steps for the
Revert "fs: add a temporary..." conversation was...

The conversation went too fast, I need to go back and listen to the audio,
unless someone else can fill in?


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8245 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecVzV6giNfY3ckYHq1JarKLXnZs5jFks5qjKLzgaJpZM4JrmzC
.

@joshgav

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joshgav

joshgav Sep 6, 2016

Member

Addressed @Trott's comments and added reference to @thealphanerd's comment in the notes. Can I get another LGTM? Thanks!

Member

joshgav commented Sep 6, 2016

Addressed @Trott's comments and added reference to @thealphanerd's comment in the notes. Can I get another LGTM? Thanks!

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Sep 7, 2016

Member

LGTM

Member

jasnell commented Sep 7, 2016

LGTM

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Sep 7, 2016

Member

LGTM

Member

Trott commented Sep 7, 2016

LGTM

doc: add 2016-08-17 CTC meeting minutes
PR-URL: #8245
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

@joshgav joshgav merged commit c436437 into nodejs:master Sep 7, 2016

@joshgav

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joshgav

joshgav Sep 7, 2016

Member

landed in c436437

Member

joshgav commented Sep 7, 2016

landed in c436437

@joshgav joshgav deleted the joshgav:ctc-2016-08-17 branch Sep 12, 2016

Fishrock123 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 14, 2016

doc: add 2016-08-17 CTC meeting minutes
PR-URL: #8245
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

MylesBorins added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2016

doc: add 2016-08-17 CTC meeting minutes
PR-URL: #8245
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

MylesBorins added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2016

doc: add 2016-08-17 CTC meeting minutes
PR-URL: #8245
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2016

doc: add 2016-08-17 CTC meeting minutes
PR-URL: #8245
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

MylesBorins added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2016

doc: add 2016-08-17 CTC meeting minutes
PR-URL: #8245
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

@MylesBorins MylesBorins referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2016

Closed

V4.6.2 proposal #9298

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment