Skip to content

doc: add notes from collab summit discussion #11

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 2, 2016

Conversation

joshgav
Copy link
Contributor

@joshgav joshgav commented Dec 1, 2016

cc @ljharb @jasongin @coreybutler @marcelklehr

I didn't get all attendees names, so would be great if you could note them here. Thanks!

PR-URL: nodejs#11
Reviewed-By: <tbd>
Reviewed-By: <tbd>
@coreybutler
Copy link
Member

William & Jeremiah were there for the early part of the discussion. Troy was also there, but I didn't catch his last name or github handle.

@coreybutler coreybutler merged commit 63a360f into nodejs:master Dec 2, 2016

* Should only projects actively supported by core be in Foundation?
* Bring them all in? Not sustainable.
* So if something is to be in core/Foundation, would need to be one, and would
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why only one? This makes no sense to me. Bringing in two, or three, in no way is a slippery slope to "all".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ljharb the key new understanding we reached in our discussion Thursday was that any project in the Foundation needs to be actively supported by the Foundation. That means at least engineers maintaining and updating it, but more than that indicates some degree of assumed responsibility for us here in core; perhaps to address bugs and security issues, perhaps something else. /cc @mikeal @rvagg for further thoughts.

Based on that understanding it's probably not sustainable to support more than one in core, so we want to be conscientious about what that one is.

Does that help explain why it seems "only one in the Foundation" might be our goal? Do you think we could support more?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it would be best to continue this discussion here: nodejs/TSC#96 (comment). Thanks!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Commented there, thanks.

* nvm uses POSIX. Best part is that it doesn’t require JS or a Node runtime. But
it doesn’t work on Win32 and it’s more difficult to modify.
* Maybe we should focus on Windows independently anyway? JS code would also be
full of “#ifdef”-like statements.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

NVS is a cross-platform JS version-manager that is not full of "#ifdef"-like statements. While there certainly are some platform-specific sections of code, the great majority of the implementation can be cross-platform, thanks to the cross-platform APIs provided by the Node.js core modules.

Another significant consideration not listed here is that two separately-developed tools are unlikely to provide consistent functionality and user experience across platforms.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants