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

doc: add initial list of technical priorities #40235

Closed
wants to merge 31 commits into from

Conversation

mhdawson
Copy link
Member

Co-authored-by: Jean Burellier [email protected]

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson [email protected]

This PR is a result of work done by the Next-10 team - https:/nodejs/next-10 and those who participated in the mini-summit - nodejs/next-10#76.

The goal is to agree on a documented set of priorities that we believe are important to the future success of Node.js. Submitting this PR is intended to get review/discussion from the broader collaborator base and then serve to document the consensus we reach.

One of the follow on efforts will be to document what we should be/are doing for each of the priorities and to figure out the best way to capture and share the info.

For some of the priority areas we already have people doing what's needed (for example a big thank you to @targos for all his work on keeping v8 up to date which supports "Up to date ES JavaScript Support" and reporting on it as a strategic initiative - https:/nodejs/node/blob/master/doc/guides/strategic-initiatives.md. Another good example is ongoing work related to https:/nodejs/undici by @ronag and @mcollina.

For other areas the Next-10 team is planning a deeper dive to discuss/capture specific items/work that we believe the project should be doing to support that priority. If people comment on this issue that they'd like to be involved in the discussion of specific priorities we will at mention when we set up the session for the deep dive on that topic.

As always the the work done going forward will depend on what individual collaborators have time to prioritize. It is still important for us as a project to have a documented agreement on the key priorities we think are important so that we can promote and support collaboration on these priorities.

We are looking forward to your comments/input on the priorities listed in the PR and would also welcome people joining the next-10 effort to keep things moving forward. We currently have this doodle open to find a new meeting time so if you are interested please add your info: https://doodle.com/poll/a46canyfppq9mcht?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Sep 27, 2021
@mhdawson mhdawson added tsc-agenda Issues and PRs to discuss during the meetings of the TSC. and removed doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. labels Sep 27, 2021
@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

mscdex commented Sep 27, 2021

Didn't we have a document like this already somewhere? I seem to recall different items being on that particular list.

@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

mscdex commented Sep 27, 2021

I found this but that doesn't seem like what I remembered. Even so, was it decided to leave out items from the previous list in this version?

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

@mscdex thats for the the review/comments. In terms of:

I found this but that doesn't seem like what I remembered. Even so, was it decided to leave out items from the previous list in this version?

It probably could use more explanation but this document is intended to be the current technical priorities while https:/nodejs/node/blob/master/doc/guides/technical-values.md is meant to be the values of the project and their relative priorities. I do see that the title in the technical-values.md doc does make that confusing.

I'm thinking about how to clarify better in the doc but the two docs should be complimentary. For example as we work on Modern HTTP we need to ensure that the implementation respects the values of Developer experience, stability, operational qualities and maintainer experience and it directly supports the value of having up to date technology and APIs.

I think that we'll see the current technical priorities change more quickly over time, versus the values which have been built up over many years.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, but they are not left out as the values considered/balanced as part of any technical work that we do.

@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

mscdex commented Sep 28, 2021

Also s/techinical/technical/ in the commit message

Co-authored-by: Jean Burellier <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

mhdawson commented Oct 4, 2021

@mcollina @mscdex comments addressed

mhdawson added a commit to mhdawson/io.js that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2021
In the discussion on nodejs#40235 it
was mentioned that there might be confusion that some of the
items listed were technical priorities versus priorities
being for the values listed. Tweak to clarify.

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
doc/guides/technical-priorities.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/guides/technical-priorities.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/guides/technical-priorities.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/guides/technical-priorities.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/guides/technical-priorities.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

@Trott accepted all of your suggestions.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Oct 27, 2021

@Trott accepted all of your suggestions.

All but two, perhaps? I see #40235 (review) and #40235 (review) as not yet accepted.

doc/guides/technical-priorities.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

@Trott sorry for missing those. Think I have them all now.

mhdawson added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 8, 2021
Co-authored-by: Jean Burellier <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #40235
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Voltrex <[email protected]>
@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

mhdawson commented Nov 8, 2021

Landed in 8d6a025

@mhdawson mhdawson closed this Nov 8, 2021
@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

Regarding the first priority, “Modern HTTP,” does that include HTTPS imports (#36328)? Or just APIs like the https API?

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

@GeoffreyBooth I'm not sure if that fits best in "Modern HTTP" or "ESM". That is something we can figure out as we flesh out the next level of detail for each.

@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

@mhdawson Regardless of which heading it falls under, though, is HTTPS imports a priority or desired feature to add to Node in the near future?

targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2021
Co-authored-by: Jean Burellier <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #40235
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Voltrex <[email protected]>
danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2022
Co-authored-by: Jean Burellier <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #40235
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Voltrex <[email protected]>
danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2022
Co-authored-by: Jean Burellier <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #40235
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Voltrex <[email protected]>
@danielleadams danielleadams mentioned this pull request Feb 1, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
tsc-agenda Issues and PRs to discuss during the meetings of the TSC.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.