16:59:09 <nickm> #startmeeting Network team meeting: 3 April 2018
16:59:09 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Apr  3 16:59:09 2018 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:59:09 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:16 <asn> hi
16:59:16 <dgoulet> hi
16:59:24 <arma5> hello world
16:59:28 <catalyst> hi
16:59:38 <nickm> hi everybody!  the meeting pad for the week is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/XkE251jt768D
16:59:57 <isabela> !
16:59:58 <ahf> hey
17:01:00 <juga> hi
17:01:17 <nickm> isabela: would you like to get us started?
17:01:26 <isabela> yes
17:01:30 <haxxpop> hi all !
17:01:38 <isabela> roadmap check time folks :)
17:02:09 <isabela> i feel we are over our capacity for all things we want to be done by 0334 freeze (may 15)
17:02:35 <nickm> especially given as how we're still on "fix must-fix bugs in 0.3.3." :)
17:02:35 * dmr lurks but is currently in discussion about a paper; will catch up on scrollback later
17:02:40 <isabela> if there is anything that is not time sensitive and can be moved that would be a good time for it
17:02:50 * asn looks at his 034 stuff
17:03:09 <isabela> all things placed at our roadmap for april are things we are considering for 034
17:03:38 <isabela> plus whatever might be on 034 queue that is not sponsor work
17:03:41 <dgoulet> I think for now, on my part, I'm confident that May 15th will be enough for the tasks, I'll know more in a week since I'm started this week Roadmap stuff that I postponed due to 033-must
17:03:46 <nickm> I wonder if we could have a points column there? some of these items are much bigger/smaller than others
17:03:49 <asn> mikeperry: do you think we could/should move some of the vanguard/2-guard stuff?
17:04:03 <nickm> I think I can get my stuff done on time, barring more surprises than usual
17:04:06 <isabela> nickm: good point
17:04:14 <ahf> the two tasks i have can easily be moved forward. they are not directly depending on little-t-tor
17:04:44 <ahf> how do we do this? we just move our tasks or do you want to be handling all that, isabela?
17:04:46 <isabela> i am not sure if folks prefer to do it now at this meeting or off meeting
17:04:51 <nickm> I think "Reduce CPU usage when idle" will leave us with some parts not finished, but some parts done.
17:05:04 <mikeperry> asn: I am not scheduled to do anything else exceopt #25511, which someone else just voliunteered for and I also feel is less important
17:05:05 <asn> dgoulet: we are also supposed to add #25552 for 034...
17:05:06 <isabela> you can move rows around at google spreasheet
17:05:12 <ahf> ok
17:05:25 <dgoulet> asn: yes
17:05:31 <nickm> mikeperry: I also see you on lots of sponsor V stuff
17:05:34 <isabela> right now they are group by sponsor cuz of the 'visuals' hehe
17:05:35 <isis> o/
17:05:52 <asn> mikeperry: well, there is the vanguard tor patches, and the 2-guard stuff, (and the rest of the vanguard stuff that are not tied to 034)
17:06:03 <nickm> isabela: what do you think about marking stuff that we can merge in a partially completed state?
17:06:04 <catalyst> i think a lot of the sponsor3 stuff is general improvement, so we can continue to work on them after 034
17:06:28 <nickm> For example, #25500 and #24986 are useful even if we only do some of it in 0.3.4
17:06:50 <mikeperry> nickm: yes, that is all of the vangurd/2-guard stuff. as I said, I don't really have anything else
17:07:18 <mikeperry> I would say I am happy to chill, but that is not really the case either ;)
17:07:24 <isabela> nickm: lets bring forward to the roadmap the one we are doing on each release then
17:07:28 <asn> mikeperry: ack :)
17:07:34 <isabela> nickm: paste the child ticket there too
17:07:52 <asn> dgoulet: how do you think we should fit in the rev counter issue?
17:07:56 <nickm> isabela: I don't understand what you're asking for?
17:08:12 <micah> hi all
17:08:31 <asn> dgoulet: just add #25552 with R+, and hope to find time to do it?
17:08:32 <dgoulet> asn: I think for 034 is fine to the cost of moving things to 035 on my plate at least
17:08:35 <isabela> nickm: sorry i thought you were saying these were child tickets of an item at the roadmap
17:08:43 <isabela> nickm: leave in april whatever will go to 034
17:08:53 <isabela> nickm: what is not going to 034 move it to may
17:09:18 <isabela> you should be able to carry the row around and place it wherever you want at gdocs
17:09:32 <asn> dgoulet: aight im adding a row for #25552
17:10:01 <nickm> isabela: I was asking about tickets where I think we will do some of it, but not all of it.
17:10:31 <isabela> you can copy them in may as well
17:10:43 <isabela> so we know the final release target wont be 034
17:11:05 <nickm> But some _will_ be in 034
17:11:10 <isabela> yes
17:11:12 <nickm> for instance, #25500
17:11:13 <isabela> not final right
17:11:17 <isabela> just part of it
17:11:23 <nickm> some of its children will go in 034
17:11:25 <nickm> some might wait
17:12:04 <arma5> having it listed in both months seems plausible. if that's confusing, maybe add a letter to the first one indicating that it's "C"ontinued below?
17:12:11 <isabela> yes, so if you want to you can always have the children there to reflect all of them, but is fine if you just repeat the master ticket on both months too
17:13:11 <nickm> ok, tried to do that
17:13:33 <nickm> I think that will give the groups I'm in enough space to definitely get all the other stuff done for the May 15 freeze.
17:13:45 <nickm> I hope
17:13:53 <isabela> cool
17:13:59 <isabela> nickm: is looking good tx
17:14:41 <nickm> are we good with the roadmap for now?  Should we talk about 033?
17:14:44 <isabela> tbb does it that way too, when they will work on something with child tasks that carries on over months, they just copy it on the next month
17:14:57 <isabela> so that will help my brain
17:15:07 <isabela> when i look on different roadmaps i read the same thing
17:15:33 <isabela> nickm: yes good to move (/me thinks)
17:16:15 <nickm> we have 30 tickets in the 0.3.3.x milestone.  19 of those are marked 033-included.
17:16:45 <nickm> let's start by looking at the 11 that aren't:
17:16:45 <nickm> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=merge_ready&status=needs_information&status=needs_review&status=needs_revision&status=new&status=reopened&keywords=!~033-included&milestone=Tor%3A+0.3.3.x-final&group=status&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&col=component&col=version&col=reviewer&order=priority
17:17:02 <nickm> should any of these be 033-must, or included in 033 for some other reason?
17:17:20 <nickm> I'm going to put my needs_review tickets in since both are fast-fix
17:18:01 <nickm> that leaves 9 not-included tickets: 6 are needs_information, and 3 are new.
17:18:23 <nickm> should any of those be things that we do in 0.3.3?
17:18:32 <asn> none of the HS stuff is critical for 033 IMO
17:18:39 <asn> or the guard stuff. on the list of 11.
17:19:14 <nickm> asn: Mark those as 033-removed-20180403, and I'll take them out of the milestone later?
17:19:21 <asn> ok
17:20:09 <dgoulet> yeah #25692 seems to be 034 regression so far so we can remove it from 033
17:20:30 <nickm> dgoulet: it has been observed in 033, though.  But we can safely call it 034-must regression, since it happens much more in 034
17:20:36 <nickm> doing that now
17:20:57 <dgoulet> oh huh... so we might have released it in then
17:21:41 <nickm> we're left with #24857
17:22:07 <dgoulet> "milestone:  Tor: 0.3.3.x-final => website redesign" hmmm lol
17:22:12 <dgoulet> I,ll fix that ^
17:22:19 <nickm> thanks
17:22:34 <nickm> we're left with only needs_info tickets.  Great!
17:22:45 <nickm> Let's turn our attention to the tickets that _are_ triaged in:
17:22:52 <nickm> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=merge_ready&status=needs_information&status=needs_review&status=needs_revision&status=new&status=reopened&keywords=~033-included&milestone=Tor%3A+0.3.3.x-final&group=status&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&col=component&col=version&col=reviewer&order=priority
17:23:29 <asn> dgoulet: ack on #25616. will take a look this week.
17:23:36 <asn> and by this week i mean tomorrow.
17:23:43 <nickm> dgoulet, ahf, isis, catalyst, asn: you have tickets in accepted or assigned for 0.3.3!
17:24:05 <ahf> yep! i have one left that i'm gonna look at tomorrow was the plan
17:24:06 <dgoulet> on my part, they _need_ to go in 033
17:24:07 <nickm> there are 6 in needs_review; all but #24782 have reviewers.
17:24:23 <nickm> isis, asn, dgoulet: you have tickets for 033 in needs_revision.
17:24:24 <ahf> i *just* marked that as needs_review before the meeting
17:24:30 * dgoulet grabs #24782 to review
17:24:49 <nickm> Does anybody think that they're not going to get all these tickets done this week?
17:24:52 <asn> i'm assigned #24544. it's an hsv3 spec patch for 033. i know it's important, but i'd like to do it with a bit less pressure.
17:25:09 <asn> i'll likely do it this week or the next one, but can i put it in 034, so that i don't have it as so urgent?
17:25:22 <asn> #25347 is a much more important task for 033 for me.
17:25:27 <nickm> Since it's a spec patch, label it post-stable and we don't have to call it release-blocking
17:25:40 * ahf plans on getting #25245 done tomorrow
17:26:12 <asn> nickm: how do i label it post-stable? should i just put it as a keyword?
17:26:16 <nickm> yes please
17:26:18 <asn> ok
17:26:41 <asn> odne
17:26:50 <nickm> I'm closing #25316  as a #24700 duplicate.
17:26:56 <catalyst> nickm: i count only one 033 ticket assigned to me, #25061
17:26:56 <dgoulet> nickm: great
17:27:18 <nickm> catalyst: that looks right. You are also listed as reviewer for #25679
17:27:35 <catalyst> nickm: ack
17:27:46 <asn> guys #25347 is pretty important! it ideally needs more feedback from a subset of roger, mike and nick.
17:28:13 <asn> it's conceivable that it doesn't get in 033 and it's not gonna be the end of the world. but more analysis would be useful!
17:28:28 <asn> i plan to work on it this week fwiw.
17:28:44 <nickm> asn: Is there anything we can do on it where we know that doing so would help?
17:28:48 <isis> oh, i have #25208
17:29:21 <asn> nickm: the thing we previously identified as actionable seems like it would also do harm.
17:29:25 <asn> nickm: we should think some more.
17:29:33 <isis> should i count descriptor uploads in the dirauth state file, or the client state file?
17:29:40 <isis> s/client/OR/
17:31:08 <asn> mikeperry: i think you should finish up #25581. it's pretty close to the end, but it just needs your final decision on what you want vanguards to be for now.
17:31:36 <nickm> arma5: any insight on isis's question about #25208 ?  Fwict this might not even need a state file change; just a rate-limit.  It would be okay if the rate-limit were reset on server restart.
17:31:39 <asn> mikeperry: personally, i would go with no underscores and a fat warning on the man page. but i dont have strong opinions.
17:31:54 <mikeperry> asn: ack will look. that is my preference too, I think
17:32:15 <asn> great
17:32:26 <arma5> nickm: agreed, no need to write anything to disk. i think the rate limiting should be on the dir auth side, because relays can't be trusted to obey it, that's the whole point. but also, i think this topic is tied into ...whatever that mystery bug ticket is.
17:32:32 <nickm> asn: I'm adding "read and understand #25347" to my todo list, sadly.
17:32:46 <arma5> nickm: #25686
17:33:09 <asn> nickm: i think perhaps mike and roger could also deal with it. you would be useful because of prop271 knowledg.
17:33:15 <arma5> nickm: i think simply rate limiting descriptor uploads, full stop, is probably the wrong approach. we need to look at the descriptors and be smarter than that.
17:33:15 <isis> do we have a system for rate limits somewhere? (what function(s) should i look at?)
17:34:04 <nickm> isis, arma5: with this in mind, I suggest that we defer #25208.
17:34:04 <mikeperry> does anyone have code to pick specific RPs when connecting to a hidden service? I want to test for regressions to #14917 in the vanguard code
17:34:18 <nickm> It's a regression, but we clearly have no idea what to do about the underlying problem.
17:34:40 <dgoulet> mikeperry: I think I might but it was about pinning an RP so I could do test on my relay, ping me about it if this is interseting to you
17:34:42 <asn> mikeperry: yes there is such a thing. tor2webrendezvouspoints or whatever it's called.
17:34:47 <isis> i'm fine with defering #25208
17:34:56 <asn> mikeperry: Tor2webRendezvousPoints
17:35:03 <nickm> okay, any objection to deferring 25208?
17:35:34 <dgoulet> asn, mikeperry: won't work without tor compiled with Tor2web enabled though
17:36:22 <dgoulet> I guess if #25208 is not putting too much pressure on dirauth, could be OK to defer but not loose track of
17:36:24 <mikeperry> ah nice is a routerset, so I can use to test /16 restrictions too
17:36:58 <arma5> defering 25208 sounds fine to me. i think 25686 is more urgent than 25208, since 25686 is actually "find the bug", rather than "put a bandaid without understanding what's going on"
17:37:03 <nickm> arma5: isis and I are apparently in disagreement about what you said we should do for rate-limits.  I think you said "rate limits are a bad idea" here
17:37:15 <nickm> #25208 deferred.
17:37:46 <isis> oh, i don't think rate-limits are a bad idea, i just think enforcing anything OR-side is a bad idea
17:37:46 * nickm has blessed #25686 with a few 034 categories
17:37:59 <nickm> isis: I think roger thinks they're a bad idea.
17:38:06 <asn> mikeperry: what about the guardfraction thing? do you think we should act on it in a 033 timescale? or just let it for 034, since we have already warned the dirauths to shut the script down?
17:38:17 <isis> nickm: aha, i see
17:38:30 <arma5> i think rate limiting uploaded descriptors full stop is wrong. i think rate limiting certain kinds of descriptors could be a fine idea. what kinds exactly? it depends why we're being flooded.
17:38:53 <nickm> arma5: I think I want to close #3490 as "not a bug"
17:38:53 <isis> as in "just fix the underlying bug instead of forcing good behaviours"?
17:39:00 <nickm> err
17:39:03 <mikeperry> asn: if no one is running it, then it does not seem urgent I guess
17:39:05 <nickm> #3940
17:39:15 <asn> mikeperry: ok
17:39:24 <isis> nickm: yes, i've been unable to reproduce #3940
17:39:28 <asn> i will mark it for 034, and make sure that i notify the dirauths some more
17:40:22 <nickm> Is there a reasonable thing we can do for #21394 ?
17:40:29 <nickm> mikeperry: should #21394 still be in needs_information?
17:42:17 <mikeperry> oh yeah I can make a git branch and set to merge ready
17:42:25 <nickm> mikeperry: that would be a good thing
17:42:42 <nickm> okay, we've progressed on 033
17:42:50 <nickm> and we have 17 minutes left in the meeting time!
17:43:34 <nickm> everybody, please look over others' updates and ask them questions in #tor-dev after this meeting -- we probably won't get through the discussion list
17:43:50 <nickm> next topic is rotations!
17:43:58 <pastly> isis: I hope I have implicitly answered your question about where the code is by making GitHub send you an email
17:44:36 <nickm> asn, catalyst, dgoulet, isis: you are on rotations this week as bug triage, "community hero" (to be renamed), coverity, and CI respectively!
17:44:40 <nickm> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/TeamRotations
17:44:48 <asn> ack
17:45:11 <asn> (fwiw i noted how my week went as a community hero on my status update on the pad)
17:45:18 <isabela> (can the ppl on these positions last week sync with those on the same position this week?)
17:45:22 <isis> i'm CI, yeah! everyone lmk if your CI is borked and it wasn't (or was) your doing
17:45:26 <isabela> asn: great
17:45:38 <isabela> i think some knowledge passing will help folks
17:45:46 <nickm> asn: awesome!  That's great process
17:45:53 * asn still hasn't looked at status updates
17:45:57 <nickm> "community guide" seems nifty
17:45:59 <isis> it looks like the CI was doing fine yesterday
17:46:16 <isis> (does the CI role include jankins?)
17:46:23 <isis> err, jenkins, heh
17:46:24 <nickm> undefined!
17:46:52 <catalyst> isis: i think we want to take GitHub as primary, and handle others when resources allow
17:46:55 <nickm> some jenkins builders have been sad; making them happier if real problems exist might be cool, but it's less  urgent than the other stuff.
17:47:00 <nickm> +1 catalyst
17:47:13 <isis> jenkins does seem a bit janky sometimes
17:47:17 <ahf> asn: nice list for the community hero work
17:47:18 <ahf> cool
17:47:44 <catalyst> i personally find jenkins too fragile to be of use; maybe others get more utility from it
17:47:47 <nickm> oh, another thing: I'm going to be sending out another "help me triage" email like I did for 033, but this time for 034.  When everybody's done with that, I'll remove tickets from 034.
17:48:13 <nickm> How long should I give everybody to help mark stuff that should _not_ get removed?
17:48:31 <dgoulet> datapoint: Jenkins builds on all Debian stable release which is _important_ for our packages so we can't just ignore it
17:49:04 <dgoulet> not fixing those ^ will delay packages and make our Debian packager potentially unhappy
17:49:15 <nickm> well, many of the failures are just plain not ours to fix:
17:49:17 <nickm> eg https://jenkins.torproject.org/job/tor-ci-linux-0.2.9/ARCHITECTURE=amd64,SUITE=stretch/199/console
17:49:54 <catalyst> dgoulet: is there a way to make a jenkins dashboard thingy for "stuff that's actually a high priority for us to fix"?
17:50:14 <dgoulet> nickm: woa... Java so this is Jenkins issue itself... meh
17:50:55 <nickm> contrast with https://jenkins.torproject.org/job/tor-ci-linux-master-expensive-hardening/1781/ARCHITECTURE=i386,SUITE=buster/console -- something is going wrong with all the ASAN executables there, which suggests a debian or an installation problem to me, but I have no idea.
17:51:10 * nickm asks earlier question again:
17:51:17 <nickm> How long should I give everybody to help mark stuff that should _not_ get removed from 0.3.4?
17:51:17 <dgoulet> these should be looked at imo: https://jenkins.torproject.org/view/packages%20-%20debian/
17:51:30 <dgoulet> nickm: 3 days?
17:51:31 <isis> i feel like with jenkins i spend a really long time digging through logs only to find that either 1) there's no bug (at least that we could/should fix) or 2) something just randomly failed for jank reasons
17:51:48 <catalyst> isis: +1
17:52:11 <isis> but mostly that the amount of time i spend is not really productive, like 2 minutes of looking at travis output tells me if it was spurious and/or what the bug is
17:52:14 <arma5> is this the fault of jenkins itself, or something wrong with our jenkins install / setup?
17:52:16 <dgoulet> that is the current situation more and more but we should inform the maintainer of Jenkins
17:52:24 <nickm> I think it's worth checking jenkins for regressions periodically
17:52:40 <isis> and with jenkins it's like 30 minutes before i feel like i understand enough to report something
17:52:53 <nickm> what does travis output that jenkins doesn't?
17:53:06 <dgoulet> just more clicks to get to the console output
17:53:24 <nickm> is that the issue? clicking to the output?
17:53:38 <nickm> (5 minutes)
17:53:54 <catalyst> jenkins needs more clicks, the links are harder to navigate, there are awkward hierarchies that aren't obviously documented, etc.
17:53:56 <nickm> Does everybody think that next monday is a reasonable deadline for marking 034 tickets to retain?
17:54:36 <isis> there's a lot of jenkins builds, no easy way for me to know what setup scripts/configs they are using, no clear way to just show me the thing that failed, no clear way to show me if multiple build failures were related (e.g. "everything on 0.2.9 on every arch is failing" etc)
17:54:45 <dgoulet> nickm: I would go shorter because going over the list doesn't take long tbh... but I guess 7 days is good as we would go meeting to meeting
17:55:49 <dgoulet> I'm sure we all agree on Jenkins being more complicated and less good than Travis ... it is just that currently Travis doesn't replaced Jenkins for our Debian stable packages which are _important_. (Unless travis does that and then I withdraw my case :)
17:56:28 <nickm> or for windows
17:56:32 <nickm> or for other stuff
17:56:32 <catalyst> dgoulet: we might be able to get that kind of coverage using GitLab CI, which would be easier to troubleshoot
17:56:54 <nickm> (3 minutes left. we won't resolve all CI issues right now)
17:56:57 <dgoulet> fair enough, but in the meantime, we need to look at Jenkins, that is all I'm saying
17:57:16 <ahf> until we have the better alternatives, the best thing we have is still jenkins :/
17:57:49 <nickm> one last note on rotations -- if there are big issues under your rotation, you're not required to tackle them all yourself.  Getting help is good!
17:58:00 <catalyst> let's move CI discussion to #tor-dev post-meeting
17:58:13 <ahf> :-)
17:59:18 <asn> juga: how come u not sure about sbws and bwscanner?
17:59:29 <asn> seems like sbws is taking shape pretty quickly (and also invisibly)
17:59:40 <juga> asn: yup
17:59:45 <arma5> hopefully in a month pastly will hear from his employer that it is freeee
17:59:52 <asn> yep also hoping so
17:59:53 <arma5> and then it will be less invisible
18:00:07 <asn> juga: you have access in the codebase?
18:00:09 <juga> the idea initially was to work on bwscanner, but looking sbws i think is worther
18:00:13 <juga> asn: yes
18:00:15 <pastly> Yeah I think the invisible part is creating reservations, which is fair
18:00:18 <asn> juga: you like it?
18:00:20 <arma5> pastly: one permission, once, is good foreverish, i hope?
18:00:35 <juga> asn: yes :)
18:00:40 <arma5> (all development after that will just be minor tweaks after all)
18:00:42 <nickm> okay, we're out of time.
18:00:44 <asn> good to know
18:00:45 <nickm> thanks, everybody!
18:00:49 <nickm> #endmeeting