#### Meeting from: September 15th, 2021

# Open RFC Meeting (npm)

### Attendees
- Darcy Clarke (@darcyclarke)
- Nathan Fritz (@fritzy)
- Vincent Bailly (@vincentbailly)
- Isaac Z. Schlueter (@isaacs)
- Luke Karrys (@lukekarrys)
- Jordan Harband (@ljharb)
- Gar (@wraithgar)
- Jonathan Cremer (@)
- Tierney Cyren (@bnb)

### Previously...

- [2021-09-08](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/blob/latest/meetings/2021-09-08.md)

### Agenda

1. **Housekeeping**
1. Introduction(s)
1. [Code of Conduct Acknowledgement](https://www.npmjs.com/policies/conduct)
1. Outline Intentions & Desired Outcomes
1. Announcements
1. **Issue**: [#454 📊 Poll: new name for the proposed reification strategy (RFC #436)](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/issues/454) - @darcyclarke
1. **PR**: [#436 New Reification Mode](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/436) - @vincentbailly
1. **Issue**: [#445 [RRFC] Breaking changes for `npm@8`](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/issues/445) - @nlf
1. **PR**: [#437 RFC: Robust Lifecycle Scripts](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/437) - @fritzy
1. **PR**: [#422 RFC: audit assertions](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/422) - @bnb

### Notes

#### **Issue**: [#454 📊 Poll: new name for the proposed reification strategy (RFC #436)](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/issues/454) - @darcyclarke
- @issacs
- it makes sense to name this after the intended result/purpose of the strategy (ie. isolate dependencies from eachother)
- **Action:**
- @darcyclarke to close poll issue
- @vincentbailly to update RFC to reflect "isolated" mode nomenclature

#### **PR**: [#436 New Reification Mode](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/436) - @vincentbailly
- @vincentbailly
- made updates to RFC based on interop between the default strategy & "isolated" mode
- can you interop?
- you can set this w/ configuration & update/change between the modes (ex. force this or have the developer choose)
- junctions or symlinks?
- junctions
- @ljharb
- we should not create a situation where we are disadvantaging packages or creating more of a support burdan for maintainers
- we shouldn't be warning people for things that arent actionable for them (ie. end-users/consumers)
- ex. a third-party package can currently be relying on the non-isolated mode reification which I can't fix
- @isaacs
- believe its more likely that, based on the popularity of `pnpm` & `yarn` that we need to eventually support a mode like this
- believe these is value in a super strict reification mode
- @ljharb
- believe that `pnpm` & `yarn`+`pnp` are hiding the # of breakages in the ecosystem by asking for maintainers to change & hack support
- @jonathancreamer
- a strict package manager mode has help find issues/errors within my dep graph
- you can resolve some of these issues
- @vincentbailly
- your dependencies can still access other deps that they haven't declared if they are top-level/root-level declared deps
- @ljharb
- so I can tell someone who comes to me & says "I tried isolated mode & eslint broke because of your plugin, what should I do?" I can tell them to "add the plugin as a primary dep & that should resolve your problems"? &
- does `pnpm` have a similar strategy/capability baked-in?
- @vincentbailly
- yes
- @isaacs
- this RFC is not specific to workspaces but is much more powerful in workspace projects
- @isaacs
- `root -> workspace(foo) -> bar` does this get linked?
- @vincentbailly
- we can decide, no strong opinion
- @ljharb
- we should keep in mind the concept of "isolated for me & not for you"

#### **Issue**: [#445 [RRFC] Breaking changes for `npm@8`](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/issues/445) - @nlf
- @wraithgar
- changes include:
- no more programmatic API
- no more support for node 10
- **Actions:**
- [ ] @wraithgar determine which version of node is appropriate to jump to

#### **PR**: [#437 RFC: Robust Lifecycle Scripts](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/437) - @fritzy
- @fritzy no update yet

#### **PR**: [#422 RFC: audit assertions](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/422) - @bnb
- @bnb no update - requires some clear next steps