diff --git a/meetings/2024-11-13.md b/meetings/2024-11-13.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..71f596b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2024-11-13.md @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2024-11-13 + +## Links + +* **Recording**: +* **GitHub Issue**: + +## 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**: + +Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar.