GeezerVison

LGTM

Green apart from a flaky network test. Landed in 839f3d9, thanks for the review.

Crap, I forgot to bump the patchlevel. Mea culpa, I'll follow up with a PR later today.

We should get confirmation from the V8 team that it is okay for us to be bumping the patch level for the 5.1 branch for our copy given that it is freshly abandoned. If a merge happens upstream, we would get into a very confusing state with the version numbers. /cc @natorion.

Is it a new rule that we have to bump the patch level ?

We should start doing that once we become the de facto upstream, yes. My merge request for 5.1 got rejected earlier today so I think we've reached that point. :-)

@bnoordhuis we are having an LTS meeting Monday morning with stakeholders from V8 to discuss having official LTS release streams so that we can use their official process to backport changes.

Would you like to join?

--> nodejs/Release#119

s/Monday/Wednesday/? It says the date is the 13th. I would but I don't know if I can.

@bnoordhuis it is indeed Wednesday... we were picking between dates and I had too many in my head. If you can't make it please feel free to let me know anything you think should be mentioned and I'll make sure it is brought up

I'll see if I can join. In case I can't make it:

1. If we're going to use Google's infrastructure, what time frame are we looking at? I understand @ofrobots's concern about conflicting version numbers but don't think maintenance should come to a standstill while we wait.
2. Apropos infrastructure, I understand builders are torn down when a release branch is EOL'd. Does that mean only a subset of the normal waterfall is used and is it still worthwhile for us in that case? We can ramp up our own infrastructure with only modest effort.
3. Using Google's infrastructure, we'll need to test changes against our test suite separately. Inconvenient, can something be done about that?

should this land in v6 or does it need to wait since v6 is still on v8 v5.0.x?

This should not land in v6. The v6.x version of this patch is here

Ah thanks @targos!

@ofrobots's concern about conflicting version numbers but don't think maintenance should come to a standstill while we wait.

My concern was only that we should notify upstream that we have started bumping the patch level. Given that V8 5.1 was so 'fresly abandonded' it is sometimes possible that upstream might change plans and allow a few more merges after one has been rejected (example). My pinging of @natorion above is probably enough notification of upstream.