2024-02-02
[14:03:05.0281] <Chris de Almeida>
hey folks -- who will be handing the TG2/editors' report at plenary and how much time do you need?


2024-02-06
[10:18:54.0002] <sffc>
Ben is handling the 402 update :)

[10:19:30.0186] <ryzokuken>
I filled it into TCQ, will update schedule


2024-02-08
[15:14:22.0209] <Richard Gibson>
is there any reason why we shouldn't start the opt-out period early like 262?

[15:14:58.0768] <ryzokuken>
Richard Gibson i was thinking about it actually

[15:15:10.0922] <ryzokuken>
but I also realized that we have some very important editorial PRs waiting on review

[15:15:47.0550] <Richard Gibson>
right, but being editorial we can get approval now and merge them before the next meeting

[15:15:52.0556] <ryzokuken>
so I wonder if it'll actually be better to get through our backlog by the next meeting, freeze the spec and get the frozen spec approved by plenary then

[15:16:01.0845] <ryzokuken>
oh, is that so?

[15:16:08.0284] <ljharb>
you don't need approval for additional editorial items

[15:16:12.0256] <ryzokuken>
ah 

[15:16:19.0764] <ljharb>
so, ask for approval for main + any outstanding normative items

[15:16:23.0546] <ryzokuken>
well, we have no normative items that aren't blocked on something

[15:16:34.0380] <ljharb>
and you *have* to ask for it today, or it might not be out of optout in time for GA approval

[15:16:44.0184] <ryzokuken>
ah okay that does it then

[15:16:47.0894] <ljharb>
> <@usharma:igalia.com> well, we have no normative items that aren't blocked on something

then it's easy, ask for approval of `main` and plan to cut a release within a week

[15:17:01.0321] <ryzokuken>
okay

[15:17:41.0524] <ryzokuken>
it'll be a hell of a sprint trying to get all the editorial changes reviewed but I guess that's our best shot

[15:18:54.0100] <ljharb>
i mean you don't have to land them all

[15:19:00.0557] <ljharb>
just land what you can in a week, and cut :-)

[15:19:46.0339] <littledan>
you can do editorial changes after the opt-out starts

[15:19:55.0241] <littledan>
presumably editorial changes don't have patents against them

[15:20:21.0246] <ryzokuken>
> <@ljharb:matrix.org> just land what you can in a week, and cut :-)

true

[15:20:39.0613] <littledan>
you should just have all the normative functionality done

[15:20:53.0062] <ryzokuken>
dunno, I guess it's kinda overthinking since the cut versions are not really... important?

[15:20:58.0848] <littledan>
so I'd really encourage you to present ecma-402 today for opt-out

[15:21:05.0043] <ryzokuken>
but I always feel like we should get any editorial improvements in 

[15:21:16.0276] <ljharb>
> <@littledan:matrix.org> you can do editorial changes after the opt-out starts

good point, this is also true

[15:21:24.0195] <ljharb>
it's just annoying because then you have to cut another release

[15:21:30.0160] <ryzokuken>
especially if people would print them out (sad) and the cleanup makes the spec shorter

[15:22:01.0152] <littledan>
I'm not sure if you have to actually cut the version, do you? and it'd be weird if people actually printed it out.

[15:22:01.0866] <ryzokuken>
anyway it's on the schedule, I'm doing it 😄 

[15:22:14.0712] <ryzokuken>
yeah, I hope they don't

[15:22:30.0518] <ryzokuken>
we just make a branch for the version cut so you can still cherrypick commits

[15:22:36.0993] <ryzokuken>
or just merge from main

[15:25:07.0358] <ljharb>
> <@littledan:matrix.org> I'm not sure if you have to actually cut the version, do you? and it'd be weird if people actually printed it out.

not sure about "have to" - 262 post-github has always produced a new github release/tag every time we want to update what we send to the GA

[15:25:41.0463] <littledan>
OK sorry probably it's good to cut releases


2024-02-09
[17:34:35.0439] <sffc>
My slides for the community event; feel free to give me feedback: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14GRHnn0NvPWir8t4MczVxD4OK3qO89G3ZuWhiIyiVzY/edit#slide=id.p

[17:45:23.0554] <ryzokuken>
Spanish nit but a motorbike isn't called a motocicleta, it's better to call it just moto

[17:45:57.0437] <sffc>
Fixed

[17:48:03.0538] <ryzokuken>
Phrase nit, or just confusion, but I can't tell when to use lower the bar vs raise the bar 

[17:48:14.0196] <ryzokuken>
I guess lower the barrier to entry?

[17:48:39.0387] <ryzokuken>
But yeah I don't actually know so as long as it sounds right to you

[17:49:17.0121] <sffc>
Yeah what it's supposed to say is that I raise the minimum quality of i18n

[17:51:07.0014] <sffc>
ok I rephrased the slide. I think it's better now. Thanks!

[17:51:12.0544] <ryzokuken>
On the misconceptions slide you may want to switch to bullets 

[17:51:38.0162] <ryzokuken>
Because the letter a over and over again looks a bit non ideal 

[17:51:56.0713] <sffc>
Changed the lower level to bullets

[17:52:07.0517] <ryzokuken>
It's great yeah 

[17:52:30.0780] <ryzokuken>
That's all the tiny suggestions I could come up with

[17:52:37.0457] <ryzokuken>
Goodluck!


2024-02-16
[11:32:52.0808] <Chris de Almeida>
can we change the default branch from `master` -> `main` ?

[11:37:43.0057] <Chris de Almeida>
 * asking for consensus to change the default branch from `master` -> `main`

[11:37:53.0532] <Chris de Almeida>
1️⃣ yea
2️⃣ nay

[12:59:56.0138] <ljharb>
do it, but first be very careful to note how many PRs (if any) *won't* be retargeted - those will be permanently unrecoverable unless the author checks the "allow edits" box before the switch.

[13:11:29.0572] <Chris de Almeida>
just checked -- all allow edits to maintainers.. the only ones that don't are branches on the repo, not forks, where that doesn't apply

[13:13:11.0973] <Chris de Almeida>
it is done

[13:21:06.0467] <Chris de Almeida>
https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/pull/863