Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Node.js Loaders Team Meeting 2021-09-15 #27

Closed
mhdawson opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 20 comments · Fixed by #30
Closed

Node.js Loaders Team Meeting 2021-09-15 #27

mhdawson opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 20 comments · Fixed by #30
Assignees

Comments

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented Sep 13, 2021

Time

UTC Wed 15-Sep-2021 21:00 (09:00 PM):

2 pm PT / 5 pm ET / 9 pm UTC / 11 pm CEDT

Links

Agenda

Extracted from loaders-agenda labelled issues and pull requests from the nodejs org prior to the meeting.

Postponed until next meeting:

  • Real life analysis: Yarn’s loader #28
  • Feature request: Fine grained API to implement loaders that can do what –experimental-specifier-resolution does and more #26

Invited

  • Loaders team: @nodejs/loaders

Notes

The agenda comes from issues labelled with loaders-agenda across all of the repositories in the nodejs org. Please label any additional issues that should be on the agenda before the meeting starts.

Joining the meeting

@mhdawson mhdawson self-assigned this Sep 13, 2021
@arcanis
Copy link
Contributor

arcanis commented Sep 13, 2021

Can I attend and #28 be added to the agenda? I didn't realize the issue needed to be up before the one for a meeting I could attend was created.

@DerekNonGeneric
Copy link
Contributor

Can I attend and #28 be added to the agenda?

Yeah, thanks for bringing this up — needed to copy that label from the core repo to this one.

I have updated the meeting agenda to include you. Any other developers of Yarn's loader are welcome too!

Hope I can make this one myself. We'll see what happens, but your spot is reserved @arcanis. 👍

@JakobJingleheimer
Copy link
Contributor

I can't make this time this Friday (work conflict). There was some discussion last week with moving it to 11pm CEST, which I can do.

@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

GeoffreyBooth commented Sep 13, 2021

We need to find a new time. Friday mornings in general rarely work for me anymore.

Who can make this Wednesday, Sept 15, at 2 pm PT / 5 pm ET / 9 pm UTC / 11 pm CEDT? 👍 or 👎

And can this time work in general for you, every two weeks thereafter? 🚀 for yes, 😕 for no

@DerekNonGeneric
Copy link
Contributor

Who can make this Wednesday, Sept 15, at 2 pm PT / 5 pm ET / 9 pm UTC / 11 pm CEDT?

I can make that time, but think we should ensure that the chosen time properly accommodates @arcanis + entourage seeing as how our invitees already made plans that work with our scheduled time. I have no preference other than making sure that rescheduling has no effect on Yarn representation at our next meeting, so hopefully we can get confirmation before we update OP's meeting time.

@arcanis
Copy link
Contributor

arcanis commented Sep 14, 2021

I'm traveling this week, and attending outside of work hours (~7am-6pm UTC) will be difficult 😕

@JakobJingleheimer
Copy link
Contributor

I could possibly do a one-off during work hours, but not on a regular basis.

6pm CEST is 9am PT (Geoffrey's time zone).

@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

I think I’ll hold a meeting today at 2 pm PT / 5 pm ET / 9 pm UTC / 11 pm CEDT and whoever can attend is welcome. At the very least @JakobJingleheimer and I need to discuss next steps for chaining, so maybe that’s all that’ll happen. And we can schedule a separate meeting to discuss the utility functions stuff.

@GeoffreyBooth GeoffreyBooth changed the title Node.js Loaders Team Meeting 2021-09-17 Node.js Loaders Team Meeting 2021-09-15 Sep 15, 2021
@DerekNonGeneric
Copy link
Contributor

@GeoffreyBooth, the whole point of having an experimental API is to allow the opportunity to collect feedback in order to iterate.

Having a 2-person-meeting to forge ahead without consulting the rest of the team/group who likely have input on the matter is simply unfair to the rest of us who have spent time and energy thinking about this very problem space. The last time we discussed chaining, we did not seem to have any sort of consensus on what we though the behavior would be like.

@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

@DerekNonGeneric you indicated above that you can attend, and I heard from Jacob and Bradley that they can also both attend, so that’s four people right there. @arcanis’s topics are unrelated to chaining, so we can discuss them at the next meeting where they can attend. I think that’s better than skipping this week entirely.

@cspotcode
Copy link
Contributor

@arcanis's topics are, indeed, related to chaining, right? Realistically, yarn projects using any loader other than yarn's are going to need to chain with yarn's loader. And yarn's loader requires exposing essentially virtual extensions to the filesystem: yarn's loader exposes files from a zip, other loaders may be interested in reading adjacent files from the same "virtual" directories.

@bmeck
Copy link
Member

bmeck commented Sep 15, 2021

@cspotcode generally we haven't coupled file virtualization with import instrumentation APIs under loaders and they are quite different. For example, it is conceivable that you may want to import a .coffee file which has an virtual file with "number = -42 if opposite" but has an import source text of ("if (opposite) number = -42", "module"). We could spend some time to see if this WG wants to expand scope to such things but the actual composition model for chaining instrumentation of imports seems like it can keep moving forward. I think talk of virtual files/assets is interesting though and look forward to a discussion. I certainly don't think our current work conflicts with them instrumenting getSource etc. allows for arbitrary ways of getting source text.

@DerekNonGeneric
Copy link
Contributor

For future reference, changing the time on a whim without asking is something that we cannot repeat.

These kinds of technical discussions require preparation and I for one did not anticipate a re-scheduling to exclude our invitees to discuss who-knows-what anymore. You all can have your ad-hoc, but hijacking this issue is completely inappropriate. This team/group should operate using Design Reviews in the future and I think we should charter as WG. The part about having “less obligations” may seem appealing, but it probably means that our implementation suffers because of it.

Unstructured discussions about abstract concepts doesn't seem to be very effective to me.

@JakobJingleheimer
Copy link
Contributor

@DerekNonGeneric sorry to have missed you today.

The change has been discussed for multiple weeks in multiple fora.

We need to move the “default” meeting time, because it no longer works for Geoffrey and me. Along with Bradley, we're the regular attendees and contributors, so the meetings need to occur when we can attend. The Wednesday 2 pm PT / 5 pm ET / 9 pm UTC time does that.

We could not accommodate @arcanis's schedule this week, but we plan to do; We're hoping to find a time for the next meeting that works for him too.

I'm sure you can understand the challenges of spanning 9 hours of time-zones. For instance, to respond to you in a considerate time, it is 1am for me.

Today we were not making any sort of decision; I requested insight from Bradley and Geoffrey to help inform the design proposals on chaining and to incorporate feedback we have already received from Andrew and Gil.

@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

@arcanis, @cspotcode, @jonaskello What’s your availability next week, and generally?

I’m working on getting access to be able to adjust the meetings. I’m thinking that we can have an ad hoc meeting next week whenever those involved in #26 are available, and then on the following week we can have our regular meeting as usual (such as at the Wed 9 pm UTC time unless there’s a better time).

@cspotcode
Copy link
Contributor

cspotcode commented Sep 16, 2021 via email

@jonaskello
Copy link

Next week I only have a few meetings planned so I could probably join. I'm in the CEST time zone (Sweden). I'm currently not well-read in the area of esm loaders so I'm not sure how much I can contribute to the meeting at this point. However I've started on a PR for ts-node in this area and hopefully I'll have some time this week-end to work more on it so I get a better understanding. I'm also maintaining the tsconfig-paths package which somehow needs to add esm support at some point in time.

@arcanis
Copy link
Contributor

arcanis commented Sep 17, 2021

9pm UTC is 11pm here; I can do it once in a while, but not on a regular basis. 7am-6pm UTC would be ideal in general.

@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

@arcanis and others, how about this Tuesday Sept 21 at 10 am PT / 7 pm CET?

@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

#31

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

8 participants