2022-09-01 [00:47:00.0502] > According to our logs, your project `tc39/test262` had been flagged by our abuse detection system. After a manual review of your project, I do not believe there is any abusive activity, and that the block was placed in error. > > I have removed the block for your project `tc39/test262`, and I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. [14:50:33.0847] see Justin Ridgewell's request in #tc39-delegates:matrix.org for write access to https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3354 and https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3353 - can we implement fine-grained access like that? or just temporarily add him to the team? 2022-09-02 [09:06:46.0655] because of codeowners, i think i can do it without giving him merge ability. 2022-09-05 [12:29:37.0331] can I ping on getting https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3619 merged? jugglinmike approved except for the license, which I've fixed [12:46:25.0916] I think we can just merge it then? I don't have time to review it all over again but if that was the only thing...? [12:46:38.0304] * I think we can just merge it then? I don't have time to review it all over again but if that was the only thing...? 2022-09-06 [10:25:38.0997] Sorry I dropped the ball there, bakkot [10:33:38.0300] not to worry [10:33:41.0418] I also forgot [11:29:26.0777] question about the staging CODEOWNERs thing: in https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3654, am i supposed to be able to click the merge button? [11:29:41.0070] because i can't [11:30:01.0778] or maybe the finer grained ACL doesn't have UI integration? [11:38:30.0131] good question. I can't click the merge button either [11:38:37.0916] I should be able to now that you acked it [11:42:15.0738] I wonder if it's set up to require approval from test262-staging _and_ test262-maintainers, instead of _or_ [11:49:16.0058] ljharb: ^ [12:07:50.0101] It should be an or, i think - I’ll look into it [12:32:58.0504] Does the "awaiting author" label need to be removed for #3354 and #3353 to be reviewed again? [14:11:45.0461] > <@jridgewell:matrix.org> Does the "awaiting author" label need to be removed for #3354 and #3353 to be reviewed again? that's not the blocking factor; just someone getting around to it 😅 [14:11:54.0104] sorry [14:12:32.0868] All good. I didn't know if you filtered out that label in when your looking for PRs that need review [14:13:07.0682] but, I'll remove the label anyway as it's no longer accurate 2022-09-08 [13:58:54.0103] ljharb: ptomato: was the merge button being greyed out for staging issue resolved? [14:30:45.0454] no idea; in the end, Ms2ger approved it on behalf of -maintainers, so I could merge it regardless [14:31:54.0539] let me try an experiment [14:34:07.0780] ptomato: can you +1 https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3656 [14:34:48.0391] shu: I'm a member of -maintainers as well as -staging so that experiment might not do what you want [14:34:57.0692] ah good point [14:34:58.0205] hm [14:35:44.0492] the Reviewers side-panel does certainly make it look like an "and" instead of an "or" [14:36:40.0965] if anyone else from https://github.com/orgs/tc39/teams/test262-staging/members?query=membership:child-team is online maybe they could +1 it? [14:37:00.0277] (I guess I'm not actually a member of staging! which makes sense) [14:38:20.0299] > <@shuyuguo:matrix.org> the Reviewers side-panel does certainly make it look like an "and" instead of an "or" dunno, I find that UI ambiguous ... normally on a repo without codeowners, if I request review from individuals on a PR, they all appear there, but they don't all have to respond [14:44:39.0452] i think i can fix it [14:46:13.0956] oh hm, actually, it's supposed to only require one person from *either* of the two teams listed [14:46:30.0286] there's lots of google results for people trying to figure out how to _make_ it be an "and" [14:46:59.0214] yeah, that sounds like what we want ... but yesterday I couldn't merge a PR into staging with only Shu's approval [14:47:19.0320] also it says "Waiting on code owner review from tc39/test262-maintainers and/or tc39/test262-staging" on the PR page [14:48:02.0646] huh. that seems like it ought to work [14:51:17.0018] i've pinged msaboff to +1, he might not see it [14:51:28.0526] otherwise i'll get marja to +1 it tomorrow, no big hurry to see if it works 2022-09-09 [00:49:52.0402] I suspect that the button is also gray if the pr is not up to date with main, but I'm not sure [11:12:46.0668] yes, that is true [11:12:54.0340] you can use the "rebase branch" button to fix that tho (dropdown next to "update branch") [11:12:59.0873] * you can use the "rebase branch" button to fix that tho (dropdown next to "update branch") 2022-09-13 [18:18:25.0282] dang! I didn't think about what we should say in the test262 update. did you all discuss what to say and who should say it in the last meeting? (I wasn't there) [18:21:15.0714] i wasn't there either [18:21:38.0353] or wait maybe it was just mike and me [18:21:42.0230] either way we didn't discuss it [18:21:50.0970] i guess i can mention the staging directory [18:22:59.0308] if you don't mind doing it, great! I did it last time :-) [18:23:43.0835] sure, np [18:24:19.0766] group/groupToMap is probably the next stage 3 proposal that will land tests, since Justin Ridgewell picked up the PRs, but I don't know if we want to mention that [18:24:31.0032] nah i don't think i need to mention specific PRs, unless you think it's important [18:24:33.0269] * nah i don't think i need to mention specific PRs [18:24:41.0454] * nah i don't think i need to mention specific PRs, unless you think it's important [18:26:46.0884] no, probably if we change up the format we should do it deliberately and not just as a last-minute idea 😄 [10:24:21.0306] could I get a stamp on https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3658 ? 2022-09-14 [10:44:34.0030] Justin Ridgewell: unfortunately I only now noticed that someone else already added an `array-grouping` feature to features.txt and used it in the Symbol.unscopables test, so the one added in your PR is redundant. I really don't want to ask you to do another round of revision, so I'll fix up your branch to use the existing feature name and merge it if that's OK with you; give a shout soon-ish if you don't want that [10:45:03.0706] Sure 2022-09-15 [10:26:51.0309] if I understand correctly, we are not meeting today? I got a cancellation of the calendar invite [11:58:25.0288] for the next meeting in 2 weeks, I think we should discuss any new items that need tests. from this week's plenary I think it is only Array.fromAsync, yes? [11:59:37.0118] I'd also like to resume trying to reschedule the maintainers meeting for a time with better overlap with Europe and Asia so that Ms2ger and some of our aspiring test262 reviewers can attend regularly [11:59:49.0950] I think we stalled last time on the date picker that wasn't working... [12:01:27.0126] does anyone know of a timezone-aware date picker that would work for specifying a broad range of slots? 2022-09-16 [17:54:48.0259] yes, generally all tc39 meetings are cancelled during plenary week, sorry for not mentioning that here [11:40:20.0639] does anyone have existing knowledge about Mathias' Unicode 15 tests? https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3663 and https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3662 2022-09-17 [07:09:16.0165] existing knowledge of what sort? 2022-09-19 [02:06:23.0718] "would you notice if anything was wrong about them", perhaps [02:18:29.0968] I'm inclined to just merge if nobody complains soonish [10:38:04.0342] > <@ms2ger:igalia.com> "would you notice if anything was wrong about them", perhaps this [10:38:45.0396] > <@ms2ger:igalia.com> I'm inclined to just merge if nobody complains soonish that seems not unreasonable - Nicolo already spotted something without anyone asking him to, so I guess people are looking at it [10:51:36.0805] but, yes, that bug that Nicolo spotted I wouldn't even have known to look for, without spending a lot of time learning about Unicode character classes. that's what prompted my question about existing knowledge 2022-09-20 [09:51:46.0153] anyone like reviewing rounding modes? https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3657 2022-09-21 [01:45:31.0681] Anyone have thoughts on https://github.com/tc39/test262/issues/3480 ? [11:30:13.0358] would be a nice test case for the RFC process, to surface whether anyone relies on it ... although maybe that's too heavyweight of a process for something small like that