Stream: t-compiler/meetings

Topic: planning meeting 2020.10.23


pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

hi @T-compiler/meeting ,I think we have a planning meeting now. :smile:

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

I was just coming to say that :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

Sorry I'm a few minutes late

oli (Oct 23 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

:wave:

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

We have no meeting proposals, I don't think

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

Though I remember us discussing the idea of a meeting around directory naming

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):

We have a bunch of meetings that need people to make minutes :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):

/me remembers all these ideas of things he had wanted to prepare, oh well, next time :P

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):

I guess we can start with announcements?

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):

oh, yeah, good idea :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):

Announcements

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

We could consider having meetings dedicated to pending T-compiler RFCs

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

That is awesome!

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

That is due to work on the LLVM side, right?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

We could consider having meetings dedicated to pending T-compiler RFCs

(See yesterday's very quick discussion of two such RFC's. Those topics are not likely to be resolved in triage meetings.

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

This specific PR is just a quick hack, the general case is LLVM side work

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

Oh, I guess the PR is on the rustc side

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

Yeah, cool, credit to both projects :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix shall I quickly file issues relating to those two rfcs?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

Well

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

I don't want to waste people's time if we aren't going to have someone to champion them

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

I wouldn't schedule the meeting without a "Champion"

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

maybe filing the issue has no purpose otherwise, indeed

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

let's list the RFCs here...

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

there's actually quite a list

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

pending T-compiler RFCs

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

we've never been very good about these

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

Is @eddyb around?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

they might be interested in championing rfc#2705. I could also believe that rfc maybe could be an MCP instead ...?

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

We did discuss a good chunk of these in a past ad-hoc meeting I think

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

I wonder if @mw would want to discuss rfc#2705 (the one that @eddyb authored)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

We did discuss a good chunk of these in a past ad-hoc meeting I think

ah, I think I missed that

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

they might be interested in championing rfc#2705. I could also believe that rfc maybe could be an MCP instead ...?

I tihnk it is affecting public interface

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

so at least I would want checkoff I think

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

oh true

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

though it looks fine to me and I'm inclined to do it if y'all think it's a good idea :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

rfc#2951 is by @Vadim Petrochenkov but I think they're not typically able to attend these meetings

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:12, on Zulip):

I feel like we don't have a clear set of folks who decide about things like linker flags :)

Wesley Wiser (Oct 23 2020 at 14:12, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

We did discuss a good chunk of these in a past ad-hoc meeting I think

There was discussion about our backlog of RFCs here https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.20meeting.20followup.5D.202020-09-11.20.2354818/near/209786965

Wesley Wiser (Oct 23 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

I think the results were captured in this hackmd

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

okay so that's like a month and a half ago

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

I'm skimming and so far I agree with all the decisions

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

Okay here is my concrete proposal: We don't discuss individual RFC's today

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

I might be inclined to just go and "act" on them

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

(to the extent that didn't already happen)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

but rather, we allocate a Friday meeting slot in this cycle

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

that is "RFC review day"

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

and as part of prep for that, we can let the authors of the various RFC's know that this is scheduled

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

I feel like before that day we should also act on some of the easier ones

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

most notably, things we felt could be converted to MCPs

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

that seems fair to me

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

do you want to own the agenda for that day, @pnkfelix ?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

Sure, I can do that.

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

shall we also schedule a date to discuss the rustc crate/directory naming stuff?

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

I'd be ok with that. I would note that a lot of folks seem to be against

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

Yes

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

so some part of me is like "let's just not do it"

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

Yes

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

That is another option

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

like, I have considered

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

this may be a case where we, as leads, say "we're going to make the call. We aren't going to make further changes here. It is too contentious."

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

And we don't need to allocate a meeting to that.

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

It kind of feels like a waste of time at this point

Joshua Nelson (Oct 23 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

this may be a case where we, as leads, say "we're going to make the call. We aren't going to make further changes here. It is too contentious."

FWIW I would be ok with that

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

Normally I prefer to try to do these things by seeking consensus, but in this scenario I don't think we're going to be able to collectively find consensus on what is "best"

Wesley Wiser (Oct 23 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

My understanding of the proposal is that the renaming is for (essentially) aesthetic reasons. If there were more "functional" reasons to do the renaming like the names being a contributor roadblock, I think I would be much more onboard with them.

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

The main "functional" reason, as I understand it, is that someone managed to observe a performance delta connected with the longer names.

Wesley Wiser (Oct 23 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

My point isn't to get into the proposal here but just to point out there may be better reasons to do the renaming in the future and we should still be open to that if new data arises.

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

OK, I am inclined to make that call as well.

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

Wesley Wiser said:

My point isn't to get into the proposal here but just to point out there may be better reasons to do the renaming in the future and we should still be open to that if new data arises.

fair enough.

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

I would be ok to revisit in the future as well, I also think it's not a bad idea to sit with the renaming we have for a bit :)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

(I want to avoid repeated re-litigation, though.)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

ack, running low on battery, let me relocate upstairs

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

okay so it sounds like we have a single meeting proposed, for a general "RFC day"

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix when do you want to schedule the RFC meetin--- that :)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

not next week

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

maybe in 2 weeks?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

(I'm anticipating next week being very busy for me. Perhaps all of next month. :smile: )

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

I'd be good to aim for doing it in 2 weeks

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

we could do in 3 weeks

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

i.e. November 6th

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

also

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

we have a release on November 19th

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

and our next planning meeting is november 20th

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

I think @Santiago Pastorino had asked me, maybe before the most recent release

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

if we should allocate more time up front

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

to dive into regressions

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

as a team

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

in the weeks leading up to a release

oli (Oct 23 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

do we do async RFC actions until then or should we just use the time until the RFC meeting to collect all the info in a doc?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

@oli I think @nikomatsakis was suggesting that we could take async RFC actions in the meantime

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

e.g. converting smaller ones to MCP's

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

so even though I just said "November 6th" is good for RFC day

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I am in favor of taking async actions

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

that will help us drive the meeting productively

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I am now wondering if November 6th would be better as "regressions day"

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

that...may be even better

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

I am not sure a sync 1 hour meeting (especially over text) is going to be super helpful, but I am definitely on board with trying it!

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

maybe November 6th is regressions day, and November 13th is RFC day, in that case?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

@simulacrum its true, maybe we need to revise other aspects of our meeting format to make this more effective

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

can we describe the goal of regression day?

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

to review the state?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

I'd say the main goal is to ensure that we have people assigned to address each regression

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

and to double-check that the assignees anticipate having time to investigate

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

and, possibly, to plan last minute reverts

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

when feasible

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

/me wonders what else the meeting would accomplish, besides drawing more attention to such bugs

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

I think an example where we did have success

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

was the Windows LDD linker bug

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

that, I think, @eddyb and @simulacrum and I all synchronously discussed

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

during (I think) a Friday meeting slot

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

did the whole team need to be there? I guess not; except that you don't always know who is going to come to the table with the right insights

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

indeed

Santiago Pastorino (Oct 23 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

just in case, my idea was simpler and was about not having the compiler weekly meeting at the same time that the release happens

eddyb (Oct 23 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

btw, what https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2705 describes has already been implemented

eddyb (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

no real way around it, crate names can start with digits

eddyb (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

so this is just a PR to "fix" the RFC text

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

oh. indeed.

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

let's just move to merge

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

or just merge

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

that seems like something we should just merge, yeah.

Santiago Pastorino (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

Santiago Pastorino said:

just in case, my idea was simpler and was about not having the compiler weekly meeting at the same time that the release happens

anyway maybe the idea you're talking about is better, just mentioning that I was aiming for something very simple :)

eddyb (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

I forgot this wasn't dealt with more than a year ago heh

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

I can just merge it right now :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

if it's already been implemented and is "settled"

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

I don't think it really requires FCP

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

Yay we accomplished something in this meeting

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

only problem @eddyb is it needs to be rebased :P

eddyb (Oct 23 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

yeah there were a few things that didn't end up into the RFC before merging despite being discussed before

eddyb (Oct 23 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

god dammit

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

I can maybe resolve the conflicts myself if you want

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

I'm not sure about the regr meeting @pnkfelix but not opposed to trying it. I do think we should "rethink" how we manage our bugs a bit, but I'm a bit unsure what is the right thing to do.

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

I remember discussing with someone how at their company they did quarterly "bug scrubs" where they went over all the bugs, and kind of recategorized them, etc. They mentioned how some of the old bugs became old friends. Anyway, I could never quite see how that would fit within rustc but I feel like refreshing our memory as to old problems (and maybe getting some renewed desire to fix or mentor a fix) is a good idea :)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

Well

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I know Graydon did regular full reviews of all teh bugs

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I have wanted to propose a "Compiler Backlog Bonanza"

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I was thinking about that

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

My main memory is that it was painful

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

the lang team process has been pretty effective, I think

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

My main memory is that it was painful

yeah I don't think it was super useful that's why I don't really think a quarterly bug scrub is "right"

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

but in any case, I agree we need to do something about this backlog.

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

anyway

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I am up for trying to prepare a doodle for a 1hr sync meeting -- I think it has to be video fwiw

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I can write up agendas for a "regression day" on November 6th

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

and "RFC day" on November 13th

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

@simulacrum so you want to do it via Zoom, you think?

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

yeah

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

that will definitely increase bandwidth

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

the backlog meeting that is

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis or at least increase how much internet bandwidth we're using :laughing:

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

but yes, it would help with response times from people

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

i.e. not waiting after messages to see who chimes in

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

Is there anyone here who would not attend a meeting if is held on Zoom instead of in Zulip?

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

it's also just a bit easier to juggle having an open browser

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

(that said, a lot of people have reported finding zulip meetings easier to follow along because work, language barrier)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

You mean because of screen sharing?

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

to be clear, I don't expect full attendance from contributors for sure, I would like to see maybe 4-5 people there. I think they can vary over time too

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

screen sharing seems like something we could maybe add to the existing meeting structure

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

no, I meant because you can kind of browse and hear people talking at the same time

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis ah I see now

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

We need to see if Zulip can add some text-to-speech components. :wink:

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

two monitors helps too :) though right now my second monitor is in use for remote learning setup

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

just get a 49" monitor

Wesley Wiser (Oct 23 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

Zulip is better for me, in general, for that reason but I'm actually on PTO on Nov 6 so that will maybe work for me to do Zoom instead :smile:

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

anyway I propose we schedule it, try it on zoom, and end this meeting :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

we can maybe discuss a bit in the interim just what kind of backlog to focus on though

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

/me will send a doodle to compiler-team@ and compiler-contributors@

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

oh, we're not just going to use the regular slot?

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

wait, what slot?

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

(we can fill out a doodle, I don't care)

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

you mean a design meeting?

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

I thought we'd use this slot

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

hm, that's an idea

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

I'd be fine with that to start

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

then we should schedule it

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

I feel like a doodle will be a horrible pain

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

yeah this slot is what I was assuming

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

(though we might well get more participation)

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

actually, I don't think I can do zoom in this slot fwiw.

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

oh

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

heh ok

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

well that's a bummer

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:47, on Zulip):

Did we run a survey semi-recently if this slot works for a good portion of compiler team/contributors anyway?

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

(It feels like doing so at least quarterly is a good idea)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

Is there anyone here who would not attend a meeting if is held on Zoom instead of in Zulip?

anyone else in addition to @simulacrum in that boat, then?

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

I am wondering if maybe we still keep it in design meeting slot, but perhaps that should move

Santiago Pastorino (Oct 23 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

as someone that suffer with the language barrier issues, I think video chat with screen sharing and also recording of the sessions has it good set of advantages too.
It is very helpful to visually see stuff (helps to comprehend what are we talking about) and also for people that are more new to contributing is good to see how others go over issues. Also a very important thing is that everyone is nice and patient when non native speakers in general but me in particular spend like 5 minutes to say a simple phrase :P

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

Did we run a survey semi-recently if this slot works for a good portion of compiler team/contributors anyway?

we have not, and I agree that we should consider that doing that regularly

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

so there's a couple different topics in flight right now

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

anyway I can still offer that doodle I guess, or we can punt this till next planning meeting -- my schedule will change in 4-5 weeks anyway.

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:50, on Zulip):

there's the question of whether we can hold Zoom calls in this Friday time slot in general

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:50, on Zulip):

and there's the question of whether this Friday time slot even works for these steering meetings for a good portion of T-compiler

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:50, on Zulip):

I dont want to schedule a Zoom meeting and then discover that means almost no one can show up

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

so lets have a show of emoji hands

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

put a :hand: here if you think you could attend a Zoom call on November 6th in this time slot

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

(I know not everyone is here, so this is at best a lowerbound)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

(and okay, I admit my statement above is omitting @Santiago Pastorino 's point that a recorded session is potentially useful, even in the face of low attendance.)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

okay. I think 6 hands is enough

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

for us to go ahead and schedule a Zoom meeting for November 6th

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):

my current plan is that it will focus on regressions relevant to the next release

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):

if we are so lucky as to have a very small number of regressions

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):

then we can switch to some more general bug review

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):

but I'll wait to make that decision until we are closer to the date

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

Now, do we also schedule an "RFC day" for November 13th?

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

I think that it would be useful to have it as a sort of deadline

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

in terms of trying to push for async progress to be made by that point

simulacrum (Oct 23 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

I'm loosely in favor

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

okay. Lets plan for that too

Santiago Pastorino (Oct 23 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

(and okay, I admit my statement above is omitting Santiago Pastorino 's point that a recorded session is potentially useful, even in the face of low attendance.)

to be clear, there are two good things about it in my opinion, the obvious one that people that did not attend can check what happened later but also for me in case there's something that I wasn't able to follow properly I can re-watch a little subset of the video (in practice I almost never do this) but it's a good backup plan for when one is not able to understand something

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

I dunno, I think when I watch myself repeatedly, I get more confused by the things I said. :)

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

(that was a half joke)

Santiago Pastorino (Oct 23 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

:P

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

Okay so that's the schedule for the steering meetings this cycle then

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

thanks to everyone in @T-compiler/meeting for attending!!!

pnkfelix (Oct 23 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

let me go see if I can create these events...

nikomatsakis (Oct 23 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

Thanks @pnkfelix for driving :)

Last update: Nov 25 2020 at 02:45UTC