17:59:38 <GeKo> #startmeeting tor browser
17:59:38 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon May  7 17:59:38 2018 UTC.  The chair is GeKo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:38 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:42 <GeKo> hi!
17:59:47 <boklm> hi!
17:59:51 <sysrqb> hello!
17:59:53 <dmr> hello :)
18:00:00 <igt0> (:
18:00:08 <GeKo> ftr here is the meeting pad: https://storm.torproject.org/shared/tHoN4Ii7rLSjPE0OP4gydX4cMGadsXmRQNc-6lwru0N
18:00:19 <mcs> greetings
18:01:06 <pospeselr> morning/afternoon/evening!
18:02:25 <arthuredelstein> hi all :)
18:04:22 <sysrqb> everyone here?
18:04:29 <GeKo> i hope so
18:04:40 <GeKo> i assume everyone has added their notes to the pad
18:04:52 <GeKo> and read through all the notes
18:05:40 <GeKo> it seems there are some items highlightes in individual reports but nothing for the group right now
18:06:09 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: i was wondering what to do with #22343 for esr52
18:06:19 <GeKo> because we won't ship it directly in the stable
18:06:35 <GeKo> but there is no other alpha planned based on esr52
18:07:30 <GeKo> sysrqb: what do you mean with "Begin designing Tor Launcher for Android"?
18:07:57 <GeKo> i wonder how that relates to the things that are to do for the first alpha release
18:08:57 <arthuredelstein> GeKo: Yes, I'm not sure. I can rebase it to ESR60 of course.
18:08:58 <sysrqb> Yes, because Mozilla prefer rewriting their desktop add-ons in Java for Android, I suspect we will do the same for tor launher
18:09:23 <sysrqb> i want to start this early so we have time for iterating before the first alpha
18:10:28 <sysrqb> i don't know how much of tor-launcher add-on we can re-use on Android, yet
18:11:49 <GeKo> ok
18:11:51 <sysrqb> i think the original proposals we wrotemay not be practical, so i want to re-evaluate that idea
18:12:09 <sysrqb> (maybe i should've written that, instead)
18:12:20 <GeKo> sysrqb: igt0: who is working on the proxy bypass evaluation?
18:12:33 <mcs> I would be interested in an answer to “why Java instead of JavaScript?”
18:12:58 <sysrqb> mcs:  from mozilla or us?
18:13:14 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: i think that would be better, sorry for not mentioning earlier
18:13:23 <GeKo> because then we can test it in the upcoming one
18:13:29 <mcs> sysrqb: I guess from Mozilla since it sounds like they made that decision. I am just curious if they have a good reason :)
18:13:35 <arthuredelstein> GeKo: I think that's the better decision, actually.
18:13:45 <GeKo> good!
18:14:14 <sysrqb> GeKo: I wanted to work on that after we agree on the base for #25741
18:14:29 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: the other thing, how far are you into the tor-browser-build patching for esr60?
18:14:33 <sysrqb> because there are some proxy-bypass i already included
18:14:45 <sysrqb> and some I think we should fix after merging that
18:15:09 <sysrqb> mcs: my understanding is they thought it provided better usability
18:15:18 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: i think having a linux version working is worthwhile
18:15:39 <sysrqb> mcs: the UI/UX was more natural when it was re-written natively
18:15:59 <GeKo> arthurdelstein: i suspect right now we only need to add clang support by bumping the version to 3.9 as stylo needs this
18:16:11 <GeKo> and maybe some additional headers
18:16:14 <mcs> sysrqb: OK; thanks!
18:16:28 <GeKo> arthuredelstein: so, if you want to add that, please go ahead
18:16:51 <GeKo> i think the macOS part might be trickier. especially i am inlcined to try to fix #9711 while we are at it
18:17:10 <GeKo> so, i'd say for now hold off with that part
18:17:39 <arthuredelstein> GeKo: OK, sounds good. I'm focused on Linux right now and hoping to get something working as soon as possible.
18:18:00 <arthuredelstein> So I'll be putting my efforts on that this week.
18:18:45 <GeKo> okay. #24631 is the parent ticket for all the toolchain updates fwiw
18:19:27 <GeKo> sysrqb: sounds good to me.
18:19:39 <sysrqb> cool
18:20:20 <GeKo> sysrqb: are you still hitting crashes with the patches for #25741?
18:20:49 <sysrqb> GeKo: No, I haven't seen any crashes
18:21:06 <sysrqb> not anymore (at least)
18:21:17 <sysrqb> I hd a problem with the emulator i was using :/
18:21:21 <sysrqb> *had
18:21:48 <GeKo> that's... good news i guess :)
18:21:56 <sysrqb> it's better :)
18:21:59 <GeKo> heh
18:22:34 * dmr finally caught up on the scrollback here and the pad (sorry - been a bit behind!)
18:22:43 <GeKo> boklm: so the bisecting is ongoing for more than two weeks now, is there any blocker we could think about helping with?
18:24:24 <boklm> I'm hoping to find the commit causing the issue this week
18:24:47 <GeKo> anything else we have for today before we move on to the discussion time?
18:25:08 <GeKo> boklm: sounds good (and i guess that's a "no" to my questions :) )
18:26:16 <arthuredelstein> pospeselr: I'm having a look regarding your question and will post soon.
18:26:24 <pospeselr> ok thanks!
18:26:25 <GeKo> *question
18:26:25 <arthuredelstein> (in the pad)
18:26:34 <GeKo> alright, discussion time then i guess
18:26:45 <GeKo> i had two items
18:27:08 <GeKo> the meeting invites for the dev meeting should be out by now
18:27:56 <GeKo> after the rome meeting i had the idea to meet one day earlier already to have a tor browser team meeting day like the network team did in the last times
18:28:13 <GeKo> to make it easier to do the roadmapping
18:28:38 <GeKo> and then incorporate other team feedback and finish the roadmap during the regular team meeting day
18:28:57 <GeKo> does that sounds like a thing we shuold try this time?
18:29:01 <GeKo> *sound
18:29:48 <mcs> If you think we need that extra time, then it makes sense for our team to arrive earlier.
18:30:18 <mcs> Doing so might provide more time for coordination among teams, as you said.
18:30:57 <boklm> it sounds good to me
18:31:24 <sysrqb> +1
18:31:37 <GeKo> well, i don't know if it takes extra time. but getting the actual roadmap sorted out essentially after the meeting with all the inputs during the meeting day
18:31:55 <GeKo> +  the roadmapping on that day itself was quite some effort
18:32:08 <GeKo> i think that should not be as hard as it was for me
18:32:35 <GeKo> and i have the feeling it would help having a team day a day earlier already
18:32:58 <pospeselr> an extra day certainly shouldn't hurt
18:33:06 <mcs> Let’s try it then in the hope that it will reduce pain overall :)
18:33:53 <GeKo> okay. i'll send an email around later today or tomorrow making this explicit and then everyone can try getting tickets to mexico city
18:34:05 <GeKo> (and back home)
18:34:32 <GeKo> the other item i have:
18:35:02 <GeKo> how much should we care about the nightlies being busted during the toolchain update?
18:35:10 <GeKo> we can't land everything at once
18:35:40 <GeKo> and i tried to update just clang today to 3.9 in order to test the linux build with esr60 but that already broke the osx build
18:35:57 <GeKo> so, even smaller changes will probably break things
18:36:18 <GeKo> do we just say "it's broken now but we are fixing this as fast as possible"
18:36:28 <GeKo> and not bothering much about landing patches?
18:36:56 <GeKo> or do we think we's should write additional code to make sure the build on other platforms is not affected
18:36:58 <GeKo> ?
18:37:35 <mcs> I am not sure who our “consumers” are for the nightly builds, but it seems OK to break things and just communicate about the breakage.
18:38:07 <GeKo> like sending a mail to tbb-dev?
18:38:15 <sysrqb> i guess that communication goes along with the nightly build emails?
18:38:32 <GeKo> well, we know when it is broken, yes
18:38:50 <mcs> But do other people know that you know?
18:39:09 <GeKo> i don't know? :)
18:39:31 <sysrqb> i guess tbb-dev@ mail won't hurt
18:39:47 <mcs> It might be good to send a message to tbb-dev if it won’t be fixed for a couple of days. Use good judgment.
18:40:11 <GeKo> well, i think announcing it anyway would be good
18:40:43 <mcs> Is there a way to subscribe to a list to receive email about the nightly builds?
18:41:05 <antonela> I'd love to use a nightly build for user testing
18:41:20 <boklm> yes, I can add people who want to receive emails everyday about nightly builds status
18:41:38 <sysrqb> are those emails archived anywhere?
18:41:43 <dmr> GeKo, antonela: is user testing scheduled already?
18:41:54 <GeKo> okay, hearing no voices saying "DON'T BREAK THE NIGHTLY BUILDS WHILE UPDATING THE TOOLCHAINS FOR ESR60", good
18:42:07 <sysrqb> :)
18:42:26 <GeKo> so, we just break macOS and windows and fix that up as fast as we can
18:42:35 <boklm> sysrqb: emails are not archived, but you can see the status on http://f4amtbsowhix7rrf.onion/reports/index-tor-browser_build.html
18:42:42 <antonela> dmr we're working on it
18:42:46 <GeKo> while linux nightlies will essentially be available all the time
18:43:13 <GeKo> okay, anything else for today to dicuss?
18:43:15 <mcs> GeKo: That sounds like a good plan to me.
18:43:42 <sysrqb> boklm: nice, thanks
18:43:57 <dmr> antonela: cool! I was just asking because it sounds like the ESR60 "nightly broken period" might not be before user testing
18:44:05 <dmr> (which is a good thing)
18:44:33 <dmr> erm, I said that wrong - I mean... the ESR60 "nightly broken period" would be done by user testing
18:44:46 <GeKo> one reminder to everyone: i plan to ge started with the "face" to "face" feedback idea at the end of may/begin of june
18:45:20 <antonela> dmr yes
18:45:23 <GeKo> please start thinking about the items you want to raise (i'll do so myself as well)
18:45:57 <GeKo> i'll reach out to everyone in a bit asking for preferred medium of the feedback and a date etc.
18:46:01 <GeKo> just as a heads-up
18:46:37 <brade> GeKo: is there an update about the open position?
18:47:06 <GeKo> not that i know but i can ping erin
18:47:29 <brade> just curious
18:47:52 <GeKo> you are not alone :)
18:48:32 <GeKo> okay, thanks for the meeting today and have a nice week everyone! *baf*
18:48:37 <GeKo> #endmeeting