| 00:06 | <bakkot> | do we care about repo size? |
| 00:11 | <Michael Ficarra> | I dunno, whenever I pull, it takes forever to update gh-pages |
| 00:11 | <Michael Ficarra> | maybe I just need to not pull all branches |
| 00:15 | <bakkot> | yeah ok |
| 00:15 | <bakkot> | claude can probably figure this out |
| 00:15 | <bakkot> | I think it's probably fine to do as soon as the PR lands? |
| 00:20 | <bakkot> | https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3824 |
| 15:27 | <ljharb> | I’ll land all the pendings this morning |
| 15:59 | <Michael Ficarra> | Rebased https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3602 |
| 15:59 | <Michael Ficarra> | @ljharb Also, don't forget to backport https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3793 to the 2026 branch |
| 16:00 | <ljharb> | is that the only one i should backport? i could pull in all the editorials that have landed since |
| 17:14 | <Michael Ficarra> | no I don't think that's necessary |
| 17:47 | <ljharb> | it's certainly not necessary :-) but is there any reason not to? |
| 17:47 | <ljharb> | (until the last year or two, we always pulled everything non-normative in whenever making any updates to RCs) |
| 17:52 | <ljharb> | i feel like our "living standard" position should prefer minimal diff between a snapshot and the spec |
| 18:28 | <Michael Ficarra> | given the sensitivity of the whole patent opt-out thing, I'd personally not want to include anything that we don't absolutely have to |
| 18:28 | <Michael Ficarra> | if we find a terrible bug that was introduced between 2025 and 2026, sure, but otherwise I wouldn't backport anything |
| 18:43 | <ljharb> | why is that sensitive? it only applies to normative things and it's been largely a formality for decades |
| 19:46 | <Michael Ficarra> | it's sensitive IMO because it's associated with a legal obligation, and I like to keep those as uncomplicated as possible |
| 19:46 | <Michael Ficarra> | there's just no reason to include anything unless it's a last-minute normative change, and only to avoid introducing a bug that didn't exist in a previous edition |
| 19:57 | <Michael Ficarra> | we should use more named records |
| 19:57 | <Michael Ficarra> | there's no reason that FinalizationRegistry cells are anonymous records |
| 20:04 | <ljharb> | i understand the argument, but it's been done for dozens of years and it's never caused as much as a mention ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
| 20:07 | <Michael Ficarra> | I'm aware that I am especially risk averse when it comes to those things |
| 20:18 | <Michael Ficarra> | https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3806 is one I would consider backporting if it wasn't already broken in the 2025 release |