Add TSC meeting 07-September-2023 transcript (#456)

Co-authored-by: ESLint Bot <eslint[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

notes/2023/2023-09-07-transcript.md

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+# 09/07/2023 ESLint TSC Meeting Transcript
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Hi!
+
+**nzakas:** Howdy!
+
+**nzakas:** Just bringing up the agenda here.
+
+**nzakas:** Looks like we don't have any issues flagged. Are there any you want to discuss outside of v9? (We can go over the v9 board next.)
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Nothing in particular, aside from the new candidates for v9
+
+**nzakas:** Okay, then let's jump right into v9
+
+**nzakas:** https://github.com/orgs/eslint/projects/4
+
+**nzakas:** https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/17457
+ * 👍 @nzakas, @mdjermanovic
+
+**nzakas:** https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/17381
+ * 👍 @nzakas, @mdjermanovic
+
+**nzakas:** https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/17524
+ * 🤷‍♂️ @mdjermanovic
+ * 👍 @nzakas
+
+**nzakas:** Let's circle back to that one
+
+**nzakas:** https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/17522
+ * 👍 @nzakas, @mdjermanovic
+
+**mdjermanovic:** 👍 pending the list of rules
+
+**nzakas:** Yeah, we still need some discussion on that one.
+
+**mdjermanovic:** But we definitely agree on removing whitespace rules, so we
+
+**mdjermanovic:** ..we'll definitely deprecate some rules, so 👍
+
+**nzakas:** For 17524, want to share your concerns?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** There's a danger of breaking some integrations
+
+**mdjermanovic:** that expect certain formatters
+
+**nzakas:** Can't that be solved by using a package instead?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Also, per the survey, `html` and `visualcode` have ~10% each
+
+**mdjermanovic:** I'd guess yes, but that would require adding a devdependency to the project
+
+**nzakas:** Presumably ESLint is already a dev dependency in those cases?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Yes
+
+**nzakas:** So is there  a reason that adding another dev dependency would be a problem?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** If it's project-related no, but if only some users need a particular formatter then maybe
+
+**nzakas:** To pop the stack a second, it looks like you're in favor of removing some of the formatters but aren't sure about `compact`, `html`, and `visualstudio`?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Yes, though we can't be sure that some integrations (e.g., editor integrations) are not using some of the other formatters
+
+**nzakas:** I'm not sure hypothetical integrations that might not be able to change are a good reason not to move forward. If we think this is the right thing to do for the project as a whole, I'd suggest we go ahead and announce it, do it, and use the beta period to evaluate any breakages. This is a trivially simple change to undo if it causes problems.
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Though they could switch to using the `json` formatter indeed
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Agreed.
+
+**nzakas:** I'll post the issue on Twitter and Mastodon to see if we can get some early feedback on potential issues.
+ * 👍 @mdjermanovic
+
+**nzakas:** Okay, we've agreed to include https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/17524 in v9 with a note that we can use the beta period to evaluate the safety of this change and reverse course if necessary.
+ * 👍 @mdjermanovic
+
+**nzakas:** I'd suggest that we not lock down v9 until at least next meeting to see if anything else pops up as a candidate between now and then. If not, then it's probably safe to lock it down.
+ * 👍 @mdjermanovic
+
+**nzakas:** Speaking of v9, I was thinking about how we did the release last time -- keeping PRs open and then merging all at once. I'm wondering if we could simplify things by merging those PRs into a `v9-candidate` branch so they don't need to stay open after we review them. Then we could do a PR from `v9-candidate` to `main` when ready (we'd need to NOT squash merge that PR to keep the changelog clean). What do you think?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** I'll need some time to think about it.
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Re not squash-merging, not sure what will happen if there're conflicts
+
+**nzakas:** I think we did a rebase merge it would end up preserving the commit history
+
+**nzakas:** But sure, think about it. Just trying to think of ways to keep the PR list tidy.
+
+**nzakas:** As v9 PRs are already starting to stack up.
+
+**mdjermanovic:** We could check how other projects are handling major releases
+
+**nzakas:** Last time I checked, most were pretty about opaque about their process for major releases.
+
+**nzakas:** I do know that Node.js merges PRs into a staging branch before releasing
+
+**nzakas:** Do you want to take the action item to investigate that?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Yes
+ * 👍 @nzakas
+
+**nzakas:** Node.js example: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/49528
+
+**nzakas:** Okay, any other topics before we look at contributor pool?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Thanks, I'll check that PR
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Nothing in particular for today
+
+**nzakas:** https://github.com/issues?q=org%3Aeslint+label%3A%22contributor+pool%22+merged%3A2023-08-01..2023-09-01
+
+**nzakas:** $100 each except for WebDriver.io? You worked more on that than I, what would you say for that one?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** A lot of effort for that one, maybe $300
+ * 👍 @nzakas
+
+**nzakas:** I'll take the action item to let them know
+
+**mdjermanovic:** I'm not sure if this one was included in the last contributor pool since it was on 2023-07-27: https://github.com/eslint/eslint/pull/17402
+
+**nzakas:** let me check
+
+**nzakas:** Indeed it was not
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Then $100 as well?
+ * 👍 @nzakas
+
+**nzakas:** $100 for that?
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Agreed.
+
+**nzakas:** I'll add that one to the list.
+
+**nzakas:** Okay, let's talk release.
+
+**mdjermanovic:** I can tomorrow
+
+**nzakas:** Thanks!
+
+**mdjermanovic:** I think it's only `eslint` & `@eslint/js`
+
+**nzakas:** Looks like it.
+
+**mdjermanovic:** This PR is ready, I'll merge it today to see if merging will be  okay because it has kind of unusual commit history: https://github.com/eslint/eslint/pull/17511
+
+**mdjermanovic:** I also plan to clean up the squash commit message (description), to remove lines related to commits pulled from the main branch.
+ * 🙏 @nzakas
+
+**nzakas:** Yeah, sorry about that. I couldn't figure out why I kept getting merge conflicts. I'd fix it locally and then GitHub would say it still had conflicts.
+
+**mdjermanovic:** The `Files changed` tab looks good to me, so I believe the squash commit will be okay 🙂
+
+**nzakas:** I ❤️ squash merge. I shudder to remember the old days when we were forced to have merge commits.
+
+**nzakas:** Or else talk people through squashing their commits manually. Ooph
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Oh yes, squash commits are very clean
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Produce nice history
+
+**nzakas:** All right, I think that's it for today. Thanks! (And thanks @sam3k_ for the notes)
+
+**mdjermanovic:** Thanks! 👋