18:59:14 <GeKo> #startmeeting tor browser
18:59:14 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Jan 29 18:59:14 2018 UTC.  The chair is GeKo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:59:14 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:59:20 <GeKo> hi all!
18:59:46 <pospeselr> hello!
18:59:47 <igt0> :)
18:59:52 <boklm> hi!
19:00:05 <isabela> o/
19:00:08 <GeKo> the pad is , asusual, here: https://storm.torproject.org/shared/tHoN4Ii7rLSjPE0OP4gydX4cMGadsXmRQNc-6lwru0N
19:01:24 <arthuredelstein> hi everyone!
19:01:31 <sysrqb> o/
19:03:18 * mcs is reading the pad
19:03:47 <GeKo> sysrqb: https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor-browser-spec.git/plain/position-papers/HTTP3/HTTP3.pdf might interest you
19:04:50 <GeKo> mike and i have been at the http/2 workshop two years ago and talked about that there
19:05:01 <sysrqb> GeKo: Neat! Yes, that does look interesting, thanks!
19:05:41 <sysrqb> I'll read it this week/weekend
19:05:52 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: see this link as well in case you have not done yet
19:06:08 <GeKo> okay, let's get started
19:06:43 <arthuredelstein> thanks!
19:07:21 <GeKo> tjr: what#s your plan for fixing win64 things for esr60?
19:08:18 <tjr> I don't have one :) Specifically, I don't have a mingw w64 build in try; so I can't test a patch to tell if it fixes that build. but if you have a patch, I can make sure it doesn't fix any other builds and try and probably get it landed
19:08:37 <tjr> I would like to try and get an x64 build into taskcluster 'soon' but I don't think it will be there by 60
19:08:49 <GeKo> ok. well, we only have a backout at the moment :)
19:08:55 <GeKo> which means no proper patch
19:09:26 <tjr> You're backing out https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1269251 and it fixes it?
19:09:52 <GeKo> yes
19:10:23 <GeKo> i'll try to poke folks then and/or come up with an patch onmy own
19:10:30 <GeKo> not sure if i get to it though
19:10:44 <tjr> Ok.  I don't understand why that fixes it, but it would probably be not-that-difficult to fix that up and land it.  (e.g. only enable stl wrappers on darwin, android, windows, and mingw x86)
19:11:16 <tjr> Well, it might get pushback on landing if there's no solid explanation for whay it fixes it....
19:11:32 <GeKo> okay, tjr re your question about #19212
19:11:38 <GeKo> yeah
19:11:41 <GeKo> err
19:11:43 <GeKo> #19121
19:12:51 <GeKo> tjr: let me recheck this piece and come with a proper argument back
19:12:59 <tjr> okay :)
19:13:17 <GeKo> i feel the  more i think about it i get the feeling the details are missing :)
19:13:17 <tjr> I mean if you get update.xml from a .onion but the mar files from a cdn it makes plenty of sense
19:13:41 <GeKo> yeah, but that has not been our argument back then iirc
19:13:46 <tjr> Even from different onions it kind of makes sense (can compromise one onion but not the other... especially if they're hsoted differently...)
19:13:49 <tjr> ah ok
19:14:03 <GeKo> but it's a good one
19:14:07 <tjr> anyway, i was just curious from a "This looks like it may be difficult to maintain going forward perspective)
19:14:18 <GeKo> true
19:16:20 <GeKo> igt0: i think i agree with tjr
19:17:10 <GeKo> FORTIFY_SOURCE would be nice to have on android but should not be a huge prio right now
19:17:19 <GeKo> igt0: another thing that came to mind:
19:17:59 <GeKo> could you update your torbutton proposal to incorporate the feedback we got so far?
19:18:15 <GeKo> that would make sure everyone is on the same page and we reason about the same document
19:18:26 <igt0> yep!
19:18:30 <GeKo> fwiw: i am about to add proposals to the tor-browser-spec repo
19:18:44 <GeKo> following loosely the network team way
19:18:59 <sysrqb> cool
19:19:03 <sysrqb> sgtm
19:19:10 <GeKo> so we have some kind of collective memory about our major changes
19:19:31 <sysrqb> I know there was a discuss with nickm a year or two ago about whether non-tor props should be included in tor-spec
19:19:45 <GeKo> tjr: thanks for moving sysrqb's try access forward
19:19:47 <tjr> np
19:20:06 <sysrqb> i vaguely remember deciding that we can add any proposals into torspec
19:20:12 <GeKo> sysrqb: well, i think we should have them on our spec repo, so not having them there is fine
19:20:33 <GeKo> boklm: so, we are done with the fpcentral stuff? yay!
19:20:41 <sysrqb> yeah, keeping tow browser spec and proposals separate it perfectly good
19:20:47 <sysrqb> *tor browser
19:20:49 <GeKo> boklm: do we have some next plans for it at the moment
19:21:27 <GeKo> i guess it would be good to talk to mozilla folks in rome about how we could leverage fpcentral
19:21:33 <GeKo> tjr: ^
19:21:45 <boklm> GeKo: yes.
19:21:47 <GeKo> i can imagine that could be a good session
19:21:53 <tjr> Yea. Englehardt in particular
19:21:57 <GeKo> yep
19:22:30 <GeKo> okay, isabela:
19:22:43 <GeKo> so this works for me, sorry for me messing up timezones
19:23:08 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: is 1900UTC on Wed for you okay as well to meet with UX folks?
19:23:30 <arthuredelstein> yup, fine!
19:24:20 <sysrqb> tjr, arthuredelstein:  thanks for the try info
19:24:58 <arthuredelstein> np!
19:25:02 <GeKo> do we have anything else before we move to discussion time?
19:25:07 <arthuredelstein> boklm: What's the URL for fpcentral?
19:25:34 <boklm> arthuredelstein: https://fpcentral.tbb.torproject.org/
19:25:54 <arthuredelstein> thanks!
19:26:15 <GeKo> okay patch uplift plan
19:26:28 <GeKo> thanks to arthur and all the other folks that helped with it
19:26:31 <GeKo> really nice
19:26:42 <GeKo> https://torpat.ch/ is the current state
19:28:20 <sysrqb> arthuredelstein: nice domain name, btw
19:28:30 <isabela> boklm: fpcentral is pretty cool
19:28:39 <sysrqb> +1
19:28:46 <arthuredelstein> +1
19:28:57 * sysrqb will play with fpcentral later
19:29:18 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: we have essentially 4 patches, now 5 from our current patch set we want to get upstreamed in the coming weeks for ESR 60?
19:29:36 <GeKo> (the sandbox ones are almost upstreamed it seems)
19:30:13 <arthuredelstein> yes, I think that's right. But I think it also makes sense to add more to the list
19:31:08 <arthuredelstein> I think it makes sense to put as many patches up for review as possible, and see which ones get accepted
19:31:20 <GeKo> that would be my idea, too, yes
19:32:00 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: i am curious what made #21569 a P3 thing?
19:32:30 <GeKo> oh, and while i think about it would it make sense trying to fix up #22343 and get that one into esr 60 as well?
19:32:47 <arthuredelstein> Actually, I think that's an old priority. We should bump 21569 to P1.
19:32:57 <GeKo> i agree
19:33:00 <arthuredelstein> Yes to 22343. I will open a ticket.
19:33:22 <arthuredelstein> on bugzilla
19:33:32 <GeKo> i fear if we wait for #22343 after esr 60 we'll have to reinvest a lot of time again
19:33:34 <GeKo> thanks.
19:33:49 <GeKo> apart from that it looks fine to me, again, nice work!
19:34:17 <sysrqb> are untriaged tickets possible-uplift? or is someone else considering those?
19:34:33 <sysrqb> (i dont have a particular opinion, just curious)
19:34:37 <GeKo> i hope i got them all out of this state with my mail today :)
19:34:50 <sysrqb> ah, gotcha, i havent read it yet
19:34:54 <sysrqb> sounds good, thanks
19:34:54 <arthuredelstein> GeKo: Thanks for your email with additional items -- I'll fix those today.
19:35:00 <GeKo> sure
19:35:17 <arthuredelstein> there are a couple which are no-uplift-for-now, which should maybe be a new color :P
19:35:38 <GeKo> heh
19:35:46 <arthuredelstein> distinct from no-uplift-never-ever
19:36:00 <GeKo> it's basically "no uplift but i am not sure about later yet"
19:36:18 <GeKo> maybe
19:36:31 <arthuredelstein> makes sense. Regardless we should keep reviewing all patches occasionally
19:36:36 <arthuredelstein> er all bugs
19:37:15 <sysrqb> what's the color between purple and yellow on the color? orange?
19:37:27 <sysrqb> err, color wheel
19:37:31 <sysrqb> :)
19:37:41 <GeKo> okay, anything else for the triage work?
19:38:26 <GeKo> does not seem to be the case
19:38:36 <GeKo> then sessions at he rome meeting
19:38:46 <GeKo> we don't need to have the final session list today
19:39:04 <GeKo> so keep brainstorming this week and we can talk about it more next week
19:39:26 <GeKo> but we should think about team sessions at any rate
19:39:43 <GeKo> so, one that is definitely going to happen is roadmapping for the next six months
19:40:03 <GeKo> then i think it would be neat to have something for fingerprinting in particular and
19:40:14 <GeKo> how to move forward in that area in the longer run
19:40:31 <GeKo> mabye with reference to our fpcentral work, we'll see
19:40:57 <GeKo> isabela: what about a meeting with the ux team?
19:41:48 <arthuredelstein> We'll want a meeting with any Mozilla folks there regarding Fusion.
19:41:56 <GeKo> it might be useful to map out the work in the coming six months
19:42:00 <GeKo> yes
19:42:19 <GeKo> so, that might already be four meetings
19:42:36 <mcs> maybe it will occur naturally as the Android effort accelerates, but we could consider having a desktop/Android info sharing session (e.g., discuss what challenges are unique to each platform)
19:42:47 <mcs> (not that I want to add too many sessions :)
19:43:05 <isabela> for the meeting day?
19:43:08 <isabela> in rome?
19:43:09 <GeKo> yes
19:43:11 <GeKo> yes
19:43:26 <isabela> yes, my goal is to have us (ux) free to hang out with other teams that day
19:43:50 <sysrqb> mcs: yes, that'll probably be a good diea
19:44:00 <isabela> me antonela and hiro will be in valencia just days before rome, so we might do our stuff before the official meeting day and have ourselves available to meet with tb team
19:44:27 <GeKo> sounds good!
19:44:29 <isabela> we want for sure to sync with mobile/android on migrating the new work we are doing for desktop
19:44:49 <isabela> so yes, book us!
19:44:50 <isabela> hehe
19:44:51 <GeKo> that could easily be part of that meeting
19:45:01 * GeKo ux team booked, check
19:45:08 <isabela> hehe
19:45:11 <arthuredelstein> Maybe we want to have a discussion with ooni folks regarding how they can help tor launcher?
19:45:18 <arthuredelstein> Not necessarily a full team meeting though.
19:45:42 <isabela> yes
19:45:47 <isabela> that would be good too
19:45:48 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: agreed to both
19:46:37 <isabela> is the team thinking of doing some retrospective session too?
19:46:42 <isabela> or tb does not do that :P
19:46:50 <GeKo> hah
19:47:03 <GeKo> i have been thinking to do that but am still struggeling
19:47:12 * isabela can help
19:47:12 <GeKo> given all the other meetings we want to have as well
19:47:20 <GeKo> gimme more time :)
19:47:24 <isabela> ok
19:47:39 <GeKo> i'll think about it this week
19:47:54 <isabela> ok
19:48:58 <GeKo> okay, please keep thinking about possible session ideas for the meeting days you think we should have
19:49:13 <GeKo> we'll make the final desicion next week
19:49:26 <GeKo> anything else for today?
19:50:06 <arthuredelstein> a subject I'd like to talk about at the meeting is performance. Again not necessarily a full session.
19:50:38 <sysrqb> heh
19:50:38 <arthuredelstein> Also some parts of that are network team.
19:50:44 <GeKo> yeah, i think that would be a good item for the open days
19:51:08 <GeKo> as i guess we might want to have some sessions there as well
19:51:13 <igt0> arthuredelstein, I also would love to hear about the browser instrumentation. Specially after struggling with the Browser(JS) side.
19:51:24 <GeKo> i could see fitting the ooni idea you had there as well
19:51:43 <arthuredelstein> the reason I harp on performance is that *all* my non-techie friends who have tried tor browser tell me "it's too slow"
19:51:55 <sysrqb> igt0: did you see details about requesting access to Moz Try servers?
19:52:21 <arthuredelstein> igt0: yeah, that would be great. what type of instrumentation do you have in mind?
19:52:30 <igt0> sysrqb, yep! and thanks!
19:52:38 <sysrqb> cool, just wanted to make sure :)
19:53:43 <igt0> arthuredelstein, right now, in the android side at least, if we make changes in the browser/ or mobile/ (JS part) it is painful to debug. By the amount of print logs in the code, I think people are using them instead of a debugger/repl or something like that
19:53:55 <GeKo> okay, thanks all for the meeting *baf*
19:53:58 <GeKo> #endmeeting