doc: add minutes for meeting on July 13 2016

doc/meetings/2016-07-13.md

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+# Attendees
+
+* Myles Borins
+* Michael Dawson
+* Jeremiah Senkpiel
+* Ali Sheikh
+* Michael Hablich
+* Franziska Hinkelmann
+* Rod Vagg
+
+# Agenda
+
+* Managing v8 floating patches
+* v4.5
+* Exporting ssl symbols on windows
+
+# Discussion
+
+## Managing v8 floating patches - https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/111
+
+* V8 team willing to have place where floating patching can land
+* Overlap of 2-3 weeks were still maintained that might cause conflicts
+* would need to create separate branch for node.
+* Why not create fork
+* Notes from Ben N
+  * What timeframe for using google infrastructure
+  * We have our own infra and can run from Node tree
+
+### Infrastructure
+* Chromium infrastructure is designed for the chromium's evergreen release
+  model. Lots of new features are being added (e.g. swarming being added
+  at the moment) and generally it is not a goal that the build
+  infrastructure will be able to support building and testing V8
+  older than a year or even a few months.
+* Would need special (LTS like) support for Node.
+* Jeremiah, backport changes need to allow older tests to run on new infra.
+* Can still run locally, but cannot run old way in google infra.
+* Michael (google) not a feasible option to run V8 older branches
+  after a few months.
+* Conclusion is that its not feasible to use Google infra.
+* Is it possible that Google provides resources for Node's CI?
+
+### Reviews
+* Jeremiah - what are the ideas on this front
+* Ali, Bookkeeping is also something we want to take care of, would it 
+  make sense to have intermediate v8 fork.  Benefit no noise on that repo.
+  It would be v8 + only patches node needs.  Ali does a lot of the merging,
+  direct fork would be easier to maintain.  Would also let us loop 
+  in the v8 team.
+* Michael (D), how will google v8 reviewers get hooked in.  
+  So far Ali has been pulling in google people for specific reviews. 
+  Often pulling in an existing fix, so already reviewed so decision
+  is mostly around whether it makes sense to backport and if does not
+  apply cleanly then getting the originator to review.  
+  Start with a few people like Ali who will watch and the
+  add on additional reviewers.
+* Ali to write up proposed flow in the issue for discusion in
+  github
+
+## v4.5
+
+* List of semver minor issues staged, discussed to get agreement
+  that they can all go in- https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/120
+
+  * Most had been agreed earlier, 2 others were discussed in more 
+    detail.  Agreed we should include the 2 new ones:
+
+    * [1aa9c318c9] - (SEMVER-MINOR) repl: copying tabs shouldn't 
+      trigger completion (Eugene Obrezkov) #5958
+
+    * [2e4fb99a86] - (SEMVER-MINOR) src: add node::FreeEnvironment
+      public API (Cheng Zhao) #3098
+
+* Myles asked that people review the changelog.
+
+* 1.9.1 libuv is included in 4.5, want aggressive testing so Myles
+  to contact npm to ask them to do testing, and will follow up offline
+  with Rod who else we should ask to do testing.
+
+* Rod suggested we add flag to also discuss his in CTC meeting. Myles
+  did that.
+
+## Exporting ssl symbols on windows
+
+* Ben asked that we consider: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/7676
+
+* Landed about 8 days ago, so not likely a candidate for 4.5 release.
+  Discussion around whether it can cause addon breakage.
+
+* Original issue: https://github.com/nodejs/node-v0.x-archive/issues/4051
+  was open for almost 4 years.
+
+* Maybe we need Ben to talk to this, take offline to get more post-mortem
+  writeup so that we can make the right decision.  
+
+* Rod, may want to put on hold to let bake in 6 for a little while
+  and if we see it solving problems for modules we may see
+  demand to pull back.  If it solves openssl issue for 
+  big interger module he is maintaining then he'd be quite
+  interested
+
+## Please review LTS README redo - https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/pull/121
+
+* It was requested that we all review this one.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+