LTS Meeting - 2015-12-14

[jasnell]

When

2015-12-14 @ 01:00 PM Pacific Time

Who

@nodejs/lts

Where

Hangout on Air

Participants: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/hoaevent/AP36tYeKFAvmxlvwzWB200jm5LsSRRYKfzdqgBKogRilJZ91UXH6jg

Observers:
https://plus.google.com/events/cihbrhlup08tcloidfum4oujphs

Minutes

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15y5J75jRV_MmyC5CIousLbTJQvz4uzyd8SuK0uVDsYU

Agenda

nodejs/LTS

• Discuss possible clarifications to the LTS messaging / labeling #63
• Discuss possibility of adjusting LTS schedule for better alignment with V8 schedule #62
• Discuss the possibility of occasional semver-minor bumps in LTS #61
• Charter this #48

[zkat]

I can't make this one -- I'm on medical leave (for one more day!) and I can't actually talk very much even so :<

[jasnell]

It's a hangout ;-) turn on the camera and mime! .... or get rest! rest is better. hope you feel better soon

[jasnell]

Minutes:

Node.js LTS WG Minutes - 2015-12-14

Attendees:

James M Snell / @jasnell
Ali Ijaz Sheikh / @ofrobots
Michael Dawson/ @mhdawson
Ben Noordhuis / @bnoordhuis
Myles Borins / @thealphanerd
Jeremiah Senkpiel / @Fishrock123

Agenda:

• Discuss possible clarifications to the LTS messaging / labeling #63
• Discuss possibility of adjusting LTS schedule for better alignment with V8 schedule #62
• Discuss the possibility of occasional semver-minor bumps in LTS #61
• Charter this #48

Minutes:

James: Looking to cut a new v4.x LTS release soon. We have quite a few staged commits in v4.x-staging currently, and two semver-minor commits to pull over.
Myles: about 50-70 in staging
Jeremiah: Would prefer not to get too behind, perhaps do one earlier if possible
James: I’ll pull together the list of candidate commits

Myles: what about LTS for v0.12? Should we coordinate
Jeremiah: we should move v0.12 to maintenance mode
James: may be good to discourage people from using it
Michael: might be good
Myles: maintenance for v0.12 starts in April 2016 according to schedule. Seems odd to call it “active” LTS when it’s really maintenance.
Michael: we’ve never defined that line have we?
Jeremiah: the differences really lie in the history of v0.10 and v0.12 maintenance…
Michael: if people are reporting issues in v0.12 then it’s worth fixing
Rod: got numbers last week on versions being used. about equal downloads for v0.10, v0.12 and v4. It’s surprising that we’re not getting many reports about v0.12
Jeremiah: may have seen 1 or 2 v0.12 issues reported
Rod: it’s likely in a holding pattern for users, if it’s not then users know they should upgrade
Jeremiah: maybe take it back to the issue tracker

Discuss possible clarifications to the LTS messaging / labeling #63

Let’s not rename the LTS branch but come up with a better label for the Stable branches.
Let’s document the LTS and release process better in a foundation slides deck

Discuss possibility of adjusting LTS schedule for better alignment with V8 schedule #62

It was decided to take the issue to the CTC for discussion. General consensus on keeping to the current release plan but possibly bumping the v6 to early May to allow for the OpenSSL and V8 updates. Possibly allowing new V8 updates in a stable branch if, and only if, it can be done without ABI breaking changes. Possibility of a shim layer to make things easier but we’d need someone to create and maintain it. Rod will raise the issue for the CTC to discuss and will invite Ali and Seth to the CTC call.

Discuss the possibility of occasional semver-minor bumps in LTS #61

May need to revisit this. Will continue discussion in Github tracker and next meeting.

Charter this #48

James to write up the draft charter.

Next Meeting:

James to schedule in early January.

[mikeal]

Let’s not rename the LTS branch but come up with a better label for the Stable branches.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. Did you actually consider renaming the branches? Also, we have "labels" for 2 (soon to be 3) channels which are, currently, latest v4 v5 and soon to be v6. So I'm not entirely sure what "better label for the Stable branches" means.

Let’s document the LTS and release process better in a foundation slides deck

This should definitely happen but I want to make it clear that messaging issues can't be resolved solely through education, most people will not read these definitions which is why the messaging needs to be clear.

[jasnell]

It means simply that the LTS table would stay for whatever branches are currently in LTS but that we'd come up with another label for stable branches that haven't rolled over into LTS.

[mikeal]

Sorry, what is the "LTS table?"

[jasnell]

lol.. LTS label ... sorry

[rvagg]

^ I was late but still in attendance (literally rolled out of bed and onto the call cause I forgot to set an alarm!)

[jasnell]

Doh! Thought I had added you to the attendance list. I really do think we
should try to find a more convenient time for you.
On Dec 14, 2015 10:02 PM, "Rod Vagg" [email protected] wrote:

^ I was late but still in attendance (literally rolled out of bed and onto
the call cause I forgot to set an alarm!)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#64 (comment).

[rvagg]

Actually this one is more convenient than the CTC meeting which is an hour earlier (on a different day). I'm just in semi-holiday mode.