nodejs · joshgav · Dec 7, 2016
diff --git a/meetings/2016-12-07.md b/meetings/2016-12-07.md
@@ -0,0 +1,313 @@
+# Node.js Foundation CTC Meeting 2016-12-07
+
+## Links
+
+* **Audio Recording**: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-1lrxFhrbY>
+* **GitHub Issue**: [CTC#43](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/43)
+* **Minutes Google Doc**:
+  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s1yJ1lhPuRhis12l6h21wvoPCuorgciFrPKEKG4olvE>
+* _Previous Minutes Google Doc_:
+  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JcmFmof53I_GRTdwcnvd9JNS562PxUR4uIhR70AzjwU>
+
+
+## Present
+
+* Anna Henningsen @addaleax (CTC)
+* Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (CTC)
+* Colin Ihrig @cjihrig (CTC)
+* Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 (CTC)
+* Josh Gavant @joshgav (observer/Microsoft)
+* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (CTC)
+* Brian White @mscdex (CTC)
+* Ali Ijaz Sheikh @ofrobots (CTC)
+* Jenn Turner @renrutnnej (observer/Node.js Foundation)
+* Seth Thompson @s3ththompson (observer/Google)
+* Michaël Zasso @targos (observer)
+* Evan Lucas @evanlucas (CTC)
+* Bradley Farias @Bmeck (TC39 / observer)
+* Rich Trott @Trott (CTC)
+* James M Snell @jasnell (CTC)
+
+
+## Standup
+
+* Anna Henningsen @addaleax (CTC)
+  * NINA, Code & Learn
+* Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (CTC):
+  * Looked up some ecosystem security-related things, nothing much.
+* Colin Ihrig @cjihrig (CTC)
+  * NINA last week. Reviewing issues and PRs
+* Evan Lucas @evanlucas (CTC)
+  * NINA and helping review/land some of the code and learn PRs
+* Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 (CTC):
+  * NINA, code&learn, Collab summit
+  * Node 7.2.1 release
+  * so much reviewing
+* Josh Gavant @joshgav (observer/Microsoft):
+  * Node Interactive and post-conference processing
+* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (CTC):
+  * NINA, code&learn, Collab summit
+  * adding octane to benchmark runs/results
+  * misc review/comments/lands
+  * process for allowing WGs more control over build jobs
+  * ongoing ABI stable module API work
+* Brian White @mscdex (CTC):
+  * Reviewed PRs, commented on issues
+* Ali Ijaz Sheikh @ofrobots (CTC):
+  * Node Interactive last week. Not much else.
+* Jenn Turner @renrutnnej (observer/Node.js Foundation):
+ * No update, just observing.
+* Seth Thompson @s3ththompson (observer/Google):
+  * At Node Interactive & vm neutrality summit
+  * Circulating the discussions with the V8 team.
+* Michaël Zasso @targos (observer):
+  * Reviewed PRs and commented on issues.
+* Bradley Farias @Bmeck (TC39 / observer):
+  * Met w/ v8 and google about various module topics
+* Rich Trott @Trott (CTC):
+* James M Snell @jasnell (CTC):
+  * Not present during the main part of the call, but…
+  * Node.js Interactive last week
+  * Landing a few PRs this week
+  * Continued work on HTTP/2 implementation
+
+---
+
+## Agenda
+
+### nodejs/node
+
+* deps: upgrade npm to 4.0.2 [#9848](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/9848)
+
+### nodejs/node-eps
+
+* Initial version of eps for ABI-Stable-Module-API
+  [#20](https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/pull/20)
+
+### nodejs/CTC
+
+* Moving `node-inspect` into core [#40](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/40)
+
+---
+
+## Previous Meeting Review
+
+### nodejs/node
+
+* Revert "buffer: runtime deprecation of calling Buffer without new"
+  [#9529](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/9529)
+
+---
+
+## Minutes
+
+### deps: upgrade npm to 4.0.2 [#9848](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/9848)
+
+@Fishrock123: New major, need to consider impact and when to land. May not need
+to be in a Node.js major change.
+
+@mhdawson: Is it breaking?
+
+@Fishrock123: Yes, but really obscure edge cases AFAIK.
+
+@addaleax: Yes, it’s technically breaking but I don’t think it will break
+anyone’s code.
+
+@evanlucas: Which version would we land on?
+
+@addaleax: npm plans to get 5.x release out in first quarter of 2017, so we may
+be able to skip 4.x entirely.
+
+@Fishrock123: So question is whether to land in current 7.x branches.
+
+@evanlucas: I think they may have backported changes to version 3, but if it’s
+not being maintained we may have to go to version 4.
+
+@Fishrock123: Bug fixing maintenance will continue, but no new features.
+
+@mhdawson: Question is what’s the advantage of being part of a 7.x release, as
+opposed to waiting for 8.x.
+
+@Fishrock123 @addaleax: it should not be ported back to 6.x.
+
+@evanlucas: Should we ship with both 3 and 4?
+
+People can update npm themselves.
+
+@addaleax: I’ve heard that npm doesn’t feel strongly about getting it in 7.x,
+but would like everyone to move to 4.
+
+@addaleax: I’m okay to land in 7.x. Very few cases where code will be broken.
+
+**Next steps**:
+
+* Take back to GitHub for more discussion.
+
+
+---
+
+### Moving `node-inspect` into core [#40](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/40)
+
+See also
+[nodejs/diagnostics#67](https://github.com/nodejs/diagnostics/issues/67).
+
+@Trott: Old debugger protocol and CLI debugger is going away.
+
+@ofrobots: Deprecating old CLI debugger, can build a new CLI debugger based on
+new inspector protocol.
+
+Issue for removal of V8 Debug API: <https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/9789>
+
+Questions are:
+
+* Do we want a CLI Debugger in core itself?
+* Do we want it separate from core, but shipped with default distribution, like
+  npm?
+* Don’t include in distribution, but make available via package managers.
+
+Some feel it should be in core, but some concern because current implementation
+hasn’t been maintained.
+
+@Fishrock123: What would bundling look like? E.g. Would `node inspect script.js`
+work, or would one use `node-inspect` installed globally?
+
+@joshgav: Could bundle in /deps and include abstraction or #ifdef and build flag
+guard where `node debug` is now.
+
+@ofrobots: We have flexibility if we want to bundle it.
+
+@joshgav: We believe it should be in the Foundation, but question is should it
+be somehow part of core. If any are opposed to it even being in the Foundation
+please speak up.
+
+@addaleax: Informal Twitter survey said about 20% of respondents use it, and
+also that many don’t even know about it.
+
+@evanlucas: We should at least bundle it.
+
+@Fishrock123: Since debugging story for Node is still maturing, removing it
+wouldn’t be a great move.
+
+[Discussion of SIGUSR1 activating inspector instead of debugger, but that seems
+to be tangential to this.]
+
+@Fishrock123: Any reasons for not bundling it?
+
+@evanlucas: Some have brought up that it could get stale if *not* bundled. If
+it’s bundled than we guarantee it works out of the box.
+
+@mhdawson: Sometimes it’s not easy to get it, having some tools available by
+default is important.
+
+@mscdex: Is it the same API as the previous debugger?
+
+@bmeck: Some minor differences due to Console API wrapper, but that’s it AFAIK.
+
+@jkrems: If it’s bundled then it would be hard to remove it, perhaps don’t want
+it in an LTS.
+
+@trott: If it’s like npm then that’s less of a concern.
+
+@bmeck: Some embedders may have concerns, need their opinion.
+
+@evanlucas: Seek more community input?
+
+@Fishrock123: Since we already have `node debug` and `node --inspect` I think we
+don’t really have much of a choice.
+
+@jkrems: Argue against aliasing `node debug` itself, because people may need it
+to connect remotely to older versions.
+
+@joshgav: Need to clarify how we support connecting from a newer version of Node
+to an older version, perhaps factor out the old debugger into a userland module
+for that use case.
+
+@addaleax: We seem to have consensus that this should be in/bundled in core in
+some form.
+
+@Fishrock123: Need to also deprecate old debugger. @ofrobots said we might be
+able to delay removal from V8, otherwise we might have to deprecate it now in
+7.x.
+
+@trott: Anything else needed for node-inspect?
+
+@jkrems: Currently it’s optimized to be a replacement (i.e. in /lib), but if it
+would be bundled like npm it could be refactored into multiple files etc.
+
+That wouldn’t effect update-ability via npm.
+
+@Fishrock123: Even if tightly coupling (in /lib) we could still break into
+multiple files.
+
+@jkrems: True, but it’s easier to test if it matches the current impl.
+
+Seems to be rough consensus that if it would be bundled in core it would be like
+npm (in /deps).
+
+@trott: Goal is that it be available to users in some way.
+
+From YouTube: If it’s not bundled in default distribution would not be allowed
+to be installed in production systems.
+
+@addaleax: Even if we bundle it as a separate thing like npm could be built into
+the executable.
+
+Next step is to create a PR on core pulling it into /deps and get review and
+thoughts. @jkrems to work on this.
+
+@joshgav to open request for adding to Foundation in TSC.
+
+**Next steps**:
+
+* @jkrems to open PR to put in /deps in core.
+* @joshgav to open issue in nodejs/tsc to bring into Foundation.
+* Deprecate old debugger.
+
+
+---
+
+### Initial version of EP for ABI-Stable-Module-API [#20](https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/pull/20)
+
+@mhdawson: Looking for more thoughts and comments.
+
+One option is to point from EP to actual repo with prototypes, which would
+reflect current state of API.
+
+@s3ththompson: V8 team is reviewing, will create issue in the ABI repo.
+
+@jasnell: Anyone saying it’s just the wrong way to go?
+
+@mhdawson: No. Someone suggested nbind, that might parallel the FFI work.
+
+V8 team is also working on a FFI to address native modules issues. Plan is to
+review NAPI and FFI in January-Feb-March time frame.
+
+@s3ththompson: These could be complementary.
+
+@mhdawson: So ask from CTC is can we land as is, or what is needed?
+
+@Fishrock123: Any problem with landing as draft?
+
+@mhdawson: I don’t think so, but wanted CTC approval since there was one
+objection in thread.
+
+**Next steps**:
+
+* No objections from those present. Michael will leave open for a few more days
+  and then land if no further objections.
+
+
+---
+
+## Q/A on public channels
+
+None.
+
+
+---
+
+## Upcoming Meetings
+
+* CTC: 2016-Dec-14, 2000 UTC (12pm Pacific)
+* TSC: 2016-Dec-15, 2000 UTC (12pm Pacific)
+