2022-07-12 [14:09:26.0639] any objections if I merge https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3523 2022-07-14 [11:02:57.0694] is today one of our meeting days? [11:27:05.0217] What is our process for discussing proposals like this? [11:27:10.0631] (Shu's proposal) [12:03:58.0005] > <@rwaldron:matrix.org> What is our process for discussing proposals like this? I think in the future it'd be ideal to use the RFC process for that, but also it seems like Shu basically already did the legwork that the RFC process requires [12:15:33.0183] do we have a collective email alias for test262 maintainers? [12:16:27.0247] (that'll be easier than figuring out who wasn't included on the email from the ESMeta folks and what address they'd like it forwarded to) [12:33:56.0908] we don't, but we could make one [12:38:11.0886] alternatively Richard Gibson if you want to PM me your email address? I think I have everyone else's [12:44:50.0917] ok, you all should have an email forwarded by me, originally from Sukyoung Ryu, titled " ESMeta updates & recent issues/bugs in ECMA-262 and Test262" 2022-07-18 [15:29:52.0240] could I get a rubber-stamp from any of you on https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3606 ? this is for about 1/3 of the tests from Anba's giant PR that I've already reviewed 2022-07-19 [11:15:55.0781] hey, we forgot to designate someone to give the update in plenary [11:16:10.0987] what to say? some suggestions [11:16:26.0428] - RFC process in draft [11:16:34.0547] - staging directory [11:17:04.0365] sounds good [11:17:05.0493] - landed tests for regexp set notation [11:17:13.0513] go for it :-) i've talked enough for the morning [11:18:07.0591] anything I'm missing? [11:19:49.0773] ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ seems like a complete enough list to me [11:19:51.0993] * ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ seems like a complete enough list to me 2022-07-25 [10:23:45.0786] one thing to kick off the staging directory might be, to move all of the old proposal-temporal tests (which we are gradually converting into the test262 format) into the staging directory [10:26:37.0081] proposal-temporal is not "an implementor" as such, but we do have tests that it would be beneficial for implementors to execute already [10:27:07.0921] Ms2ger was coincidentally thinking along those lines a few weeks ago and did an experiment with porting the old tests to use the test262 assertions: https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3591/files [10:27:13.0653] what do you think? [10:29:43.0320] i agreed dan's comments during plenary [10:30:22.0378] my motivation was narrowly about implementations -- but really it should be open to any test writer, the issue to iron out is who reviews those [10:30:38.0540] the implementation thing answers the review question: it's by the implementation teams [10:31:01.0593] we don't need a very in-depth spec coverage review, but we do need a correctness review [10:41:13.0249] i think until we answer the review question, let's keep the initial set of folks on the can-land-in-staging team to the implementers, i'll send out an email to relevant people later today 2022-07-26 [22:57:49.0290] lmk when you want teams made, and with whom 2022-07-27 [22:22:42.0381] are we having our post-plenary meeting this Thursday, or the following? 2022-07-28 [01:16:42.0345] I’m still out of town this week, but I’d be there the following week. [10:39:49.0724] so, skipping this week I'm assuming [13:19:21.0179] anyone know how to clear the cache for `npm install` on circle-ci? [13:19:53.0432] graaljs fails installation because we need esvu 1.2.9 but have 1.2.8 in the cache 2022-07-30 [01:23:13.0993] if you need that version, shouldn't package.json declaring it be sufficient?