TC39 Editors
2024-06-26
plaintext logs
prev next
source on github
16:25
<Michael Ficarra>
TIL we have Annex B replacements that replace steps in other Annex B replacements
16:25
<Michael Ficarra>
what a mess
17:06
<shu>
patching is a robust technology
17:23
<jmdyck>
oh yeah, that's fun.
17:32
<Michael Ficarra>
(this was related to https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3359 btw)
22:33
<Michael Ficarra>
it'd be nice to get another approval on https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2952 if anyone has time
22:33
<Michael Ficarra>
this is a fantastic PR and I'm excited to get it in
22:33
<Michael Ficarra>
also, maybe we should talk about our working model in Kevin's absence?
22:36
<jmdyck>
re 2952, it's gone through some rebases, which might have introduced bugs, so I can check it from scratch, but I only want to do that once.
23:33
<shu>
also, maybe we should talk about our working model in Kevin's absence?
what'd you have in mind?
23:38
<Michael Ficarra>
just that 2 approvals for a merge means 100% of editors in Kevin's absence instead of the usual 66%
23:39
<Michael Ficarra>
that might slow things down
23:50
<shu>
bakkot: how long is your leave?
23:50
<bakkot>
shu: nominally 12 weeks
23:51
<bakkot>
I expect I will resume using my computer fairly quickly, but who knows when I will have brainspace again
23:53
<shu>

okay, then my first blush proposal is that michael and i for those 3 months:

  • focus on scoped work instead of larger, precedent-setting work (e.g. burn down existing PRs)
  • exercise judgment in which things to defer, but prefer to defer as few as possible
23:54
<shu>
i can't think of anything urgent that can't wait a few months. the only thing is editorial review for proposals
23:57
<Michael Ficarra>
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3346 is adjusted now as per the call
23:57
<Michael Ficarra>
the only case I'm not sure about, I've split into a separate commit: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3346/commits/a484768784a010209ccd73b9124a6e10c86ccd7e
23:58
<Michael Ficarra>
I think for UTF16EncodeCodePoint, dropping "the result of" is better
23:58
<Michael Ficarra>
but I'm okay either keeping that commit or dropping it