Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
doc: add minutes from meeting 13 Nov 2024 (#1651)
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
  • Loading branch information
mhdawson authored Nov 18, 2024
1 parent bce05f3 commit 9c99bc2
Showing 1 changed file with 110 additions and 0 deletions.
110 changes: 110 additions & 0 deletions meetings/2024-11-13.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2024-11-13

## Links

* **Recording**: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llzo0-Vnrhk>
* **GitHub Issue**: <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1649>

## Present

* Gireesh Punathil @gireeshpunathil (voting member)
* Chengzhong Wu @legendecas (voting member)
* Marco Ippolito @marco-ippolito (voting member)
* Matteo Collina @mcollina (voting member)
* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (voting member)
* Rafael Gonzaga @RafaelGSS (voting member)
* Robert Nagy @ronag (voting member)

## Agenda

### Announcements

* Rafael: Node.js 18.20.5, 23.2.0 were released this week

### Reminders

* Remember to nominate people for the [contributor spotlight](https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/reconizing-contributors.md#bi-monthly-contributor-spotlight)

### CPC and Board Meeting Updates

*Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.

* No updates this week.

### nodejs/node

* test: improve zlib tests [#55716](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55716)
* Rafael, changes are requested as test is change to use node test instead of current workflow
* Robert, key question is if we should re-write all of our tests with Node.js test runner
* Rafael, believe discussion was that is ok use node test, but not necessarily a requirement
* Rafael, discussion should continue in the process
* Michael, believe in the collaborator summit, code and learn had people moving tests over to node test.
* Robert, true, but some collabs were against, so was a task people could work on, might not be landed. The question is what is the value?
* Matteo, my take is that we are ok with using Node test for internal tests for anything that is
not used by node test, would have to list out it’s dependencies and those should not be used
* Michael, that seems to mean that we need 2 test frameworks, and is it really worth it?
* Matteo, in a lot of places we have multiple tests running in parallel in the same file, tests
have a mini-test framework built into a single test file. Either split into files or use the test harness
* Rafael, should probably also assess performance
* Robert, there is also the high level objection which is to allow other platforms to run the Node.js tests.
* Rafael, existing tests depend on internals
* Michael don’t see how that relates to using test running or not
* Robert, going back to theoretical advantage to Node.js. If we could have common implementation with other runtimes.
* Chengzhong, my experience is that standard test suites use a vanilla test suite which is not tied to any runtime
* Michael, that aligns with what I would be thinking
* Robert, first question is if using the Node.js test suite is the right answer for the goal.
* Leave on the agenda for next week for maybe when we have James and/or Yagiz.

* assert: add partialDeepStrictEqual [#54630](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/54630)
* don’t have the right people skip until next mmeeting

### nodejs/Release

* Enforce a more strict policy for semver-major releases [#1054](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/1054)
* Rafael, it has been merged.
* On every release, it is a challenge to merge SemVer majors so close to shipping a new major
* Policy documented to sync 1 month before, will no longer pull in SemVer majors after that point. Will allow time to run CITGM, assess, etc.

### nodejs/nodejs.org

* Add Vetted Courses [#7201](https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/issues/7201)
* Matteo, added for visibility
* Fundamental problem has been “how to learn Node.js” from a source which the project believes is up to date and current
* Now that we are onboarding Ambassadors, would be good to add links on the website to content for this from the Ambassadors that we have identified.
* We should also link to training from the Linux foundation as well
* Michael, maybe section on the website which is “content from our ambassadors”
* Rafael, should we include paid content ?
* Matteo, I think we should be able to include paid content as well, ok to provide a mix
* Rafael, how do we tell the courses are good

* feat: add streams guide [#7123](https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/pull/7123)
* Matteo: How do we acknowledge original content
* In this example, the original authors are willing and supportive
* Michael: “This content was originally shared by Y in X” should be included
* Would be PR to collaborator guide in the website doc.

### nodejs/TSC

* Draft Statement of Work - Test flakiness lead [#1629](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1629)
* took off the agenda

* Let's talk about the CI situation [#1614](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1614)
* leave on agenda

### nodejs/next-10

* Ambassador program - message and topics for additional content [#302](https://github.com/nodejs/next-10/issues/302)
* Next-10 team discussed and there will be more specific suggestions to consider through PRs so removing from agenda

### nodejs/package-examples

* Bootstrapping the initiative: TODOs? [#2](https://github.com/nodejs/package-examples/issues/2)
* leave on the agenda for next time when we might have Joyee.

## Strategic Initiatives

## Upcoming Meetings

* **Node.js Project Calendar**: <https://nodejs.org/calendar>

Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar.

0 comments on commit 9c99bc2

Please sign in to comment.