| 00:07 | <ljharb> | nope, that's the one. that highlighted summary, though, is the "boil the ocean" work that continues to feel like an unreasonable ask, considering the current proposal is an iterative stepping stone to that one. |
| 12:18 | <Rob Palmer> | Reminder: Please fill out the Survey of Interest to Attend the February 2025 TC39 Plenary In-Person by Thursday 6 December 2024. This is in sunny Seattle. It takes one minute to complete the survey. |
| 22:14 | <Michael Ficarra> | is there a reason why squashing is disabled on the agendas repo? |
| 22:17 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | If I remember correctly it's something about it breaking the git history, and @ljharb:matrix.org: prefers to squash locally, push, and merge to do it the right way |
| 22:35 | <Michael Ficarra> | ... it's an agenda repo |
| 22:35 | <ljharb> | yep, that’s why |
| 22:36 | <ljharb> | There’s no urgency to merge agenda PRs tho, I’ll get to them all :-) |
| 22:37 | <Michael Ficarra> | okay but the consequence of that is that I'm going to press the rebase button instead and land a commit in the history that doesn't pass CI |
| 22:37 | <Michael Ficarra> | I would care more if this was a code repo because it would make bisecting painful |
| 22:38 | <Michael Ficarra> | but is this really the better of the two options? |
| 22:45 | <bakkot> |
counterpoint I would prefer agenda PRs be merged asap so that I am more likely to see them when I click on the agenda |
| 23:32 | <ljharb> | if it's adding a topic, that's reasonable. but schedule constraints only matter to chairs, and supporting materials are something you'd be hunting for |
| 23:33 | <ljharb> | but also if that was a concern for most people, you wouldn't need a PR either - you can push things directly to the agenda. |
| 23:34 | <ljharb> | CI? it's an agenda repo, if it's failing i'll get to that, too |
| 23:34 | <Michael Ficarra> | it has CI though lol |
| 23:34 | <ljharb> | i mean these are all tradeoffs, we can't all have everything :-) |
| 23:35 | <ljharb> | if one wants things merged fast then i'd assume one probably needs to be ok with failing CI, or no CI at all |
| 23:35 | <Michael Ficarra> | personally, I would prefer the squashes, regardless of how GitHub mutilates the git history, but since this isn't a code repo, I'm not gonna die on that hill |
| 23:42 | <bakkot> | if it's adding a topic, that's reasonable. but schedule constraints only matter to chairs, and supporting materials are something you'd be hunting for |
| 23:43 | <bakkot> | I want to just see them on the agenda |
| 23:43 | <ljharb> | so you want to rely on someone else noticing the PRs and merging them, since you won't see the PRs? because if you're seeing the PRs then you already know they're there. |
| 23:43 | <bakkot> | well, or for people to click the button themselves once it passes CI, yeah |
| 23:43 | <bakkot> | I do that sometimes |
| 23:44 | <bakkot> | I will send a PR so people watching the agenda repo are notified and then merge it so people checking the agenda manually are notified |