What's keeping this from stage 4?

[dead-claudia]

Given how pervasively this is used and how stable it's become, is there any reason this is still stage 3 apart from opening a tc39/ecma262 PR and putting it to a committee vote? Going through the process document requirements:

• "Test262 acceptance tests have been written for mainline usage scenarios, and merged" - Add coverage for dynamic import test262#1164
• "Two compatible implementations which pass the acceptance tests" - See next point.
• "Significant in-the-field experience with shipping implementations, such as that provided by two independent VMs" - Apparently, according to this comment, it's now required even by the HTML spec. If that's not significant enough, I don't know what is. (Also, Node's got an experimental implementation itself.)
• "A pull request has been sent to tc39/ecma262 with the integrated spec text" - Not filed AFAICT, as I mentioned in my question.
• "All ECMAScript editors have signed off on the pull request" - See previous point.

[dead-claudia]

Okay, now that I'm looking through the issues, I see there are some security holes produced by shipping it without realms, but I don't see anything else clearly blocking it. Is my understanding correct in this?

[ljharb]

This was discussed at the March meeting; the notes should be available soon.

[aduh95]

Here it is: https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/blob/master/es10/2019-03/mar-28.md#dynamic-import-for-stage-4-in-june

[aduh95]

Also, I believe the PR is already opened with the spec text: tc39/ecma262#1482

[dead-claudia]

@aduh95 Updated. I have since read the notes, and it seems to partially confirm my theory while noting a few other things.

@ljharb The "Conclusion/Resolution" for that section doesn't really make sense. Would you be able to offer any more insight into that? (If I'm interpreting the notes correctly, it's more like "Investigate ramifications with realms and other related proposals, and then consider advancement in June".)

[ljharb]

That sounds like my recollection; maybe @littledan could update the conclusion in the notes to match theirs?

[littledan]

I plan to propose this for Stage 4 in the June 2019 meeting. The plan was that @erights would spend these two months investigating whether there would be issues with putting Realms on top of this proposal.

[erights]

Investigated. Discussed in the SES meeting today. We are happy to see this proceed to stage 4.

[mercmobily]

ESLint won't support this till it's stage 4 - even though it's widely used.

Since it looks like it's ticking all of the boxes, do you have an estimate of when it will proceed to stage 4 officially?

[erights]

I expect it to happen at the upcoming tc39 meeting June 4,5,6 2019

[ctrimm]

@domenic or @littledan - I think this can also be closed out since Dynamic Imports is in Stage 4.