| 00:15 | <Michael Ficarra> | does anyone know who the assigned reviewers for the Stage 2.7 (formerly Stage 3) decorator metadata proposal were? |
| 00:16 | <Michael Ficarra> | from the notes, it sounds like we may have skipped that part of the process for this proposal: https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/HEAD/meetings/2023-05/may-18.md#decorator-metadata-final-spec-text-review-for-stage-3 |
| 00:16 | <Michael Ficarra> | @bakkot ^ |
| 02:52 | <bakkot> | I could not have told you that I was the one to present that |
| 03:29 | <Michael Ficarra> | it was only 3 years ago! |
| 07:22 | <Rob Palmer> | Thank you for the update. I'm glad we now have most of the performance. |
| 07:23 | <Rob Palmer> | I wonder if this will be sufficient to convince build tools to avoid downleveling by default. |
| 08:08 | <Olivier Flückiger> | Good question. If you do find cases where the performance degrades unacceptably we'd certainly have a look. |
| 15:53 | <Chris de Almeida> | before the split from decorators, reviewers were RGN, SYG, JHD, LEO it doesn't look like any reviewers were assigned when it split off, and as the notes says:
|
| 15:55 | <Chris de Almeida> | so I think you're right that we missed that step in the process, especially as there were changes made to the spec after, and/or as part of, the split |
| 16:04 | <Michael Ficarra> | I'm not necessarily saying we need to go back and do the proper reviews, I'm just trying to clean up historical data and wanted to know whether I should document that proposal as never having had 2.7 reviewers |
| 16:10 | <Chris de Almeida> | my 2 cents: document reality. it had stage 2 reviewers as part of the original proposal, but not when it split off. so I think it's less accurate to say that it never had reviewers (and similarly would not be accurate to state without qualification that it did) |
| 16:15 | <Michael Ficarra> | that kind of nuance is a little hard to encode in a structured data format |
| 16:16 | <Michael Ficarra> | in my current model, proposals have a list of 2.7 reviewers, and I can either use the pre-split assigned reviewers for the list in this case or leave it empty |
| 16:16 | <Michael Ficarra> | or you could argue that we should find a way to encode that nuance |
| 16:17 | <Chris de Almeida> | not sure it's worth bending over backwards to encode that nuance. if I had to pick, I would put the original reviewers if, as I suspect, it is more likely than not, that they had reviewed that spec text in an earlier form |
| 16:45 | <Michael Ficarra> | done: https://github.com/tc39/data/pull/2/changes/71a6eadd6df45e997ec50d2cee5e8537008604cc |