17:59:25 <GeKo> #startmeeting
17:59:25 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Jul 23 17:59:25 2018 UTC.  The chair is GeKo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:25 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:29 <GeKo> hi all!
17:59:33 * tjr waves
17:59:40 <sisbell> hello
17:59:56 <sukhe> hello
18:00:01 <sysrqb> o/
18:00:34 <boklm> hi!
18:00:36 <GeKo> our pad is at https://storm.torproject.org/shared/tHoN4Ii7rLSjPE0OP4gydX4cMGadsXmRQNc-6lwru0N as usual, please update your items if you did not have done so already
18:00:48 <GeKo> and mark things as bold which you want to talk about
18:01:08 <igt0> O/
18:02:40 <GeKo> if we had a "wtf bug of the month" contest, #26514 would be a good candidate for it
18:02:48 <GeKo> (see: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/26514#comment:7 for some details)
18:03:01 <GeKo> glad we are still in the alpha cycle for win64 :)
18:03:37 <GeKo> boklm: i think we don't want to get out another alpha this week but i hope maybe mid-week next week
18:03:43 <GeKo> would that work for you as well?#
18:03:47 <GeKo> s/#//
18:03:50 <tjr> i saw that; that's an issue with the gcc-based library code that gets compiled in? e.g. it wouldn't affect FF?
18:04:15 <GeKo> i am inclined to think that's not affecting firefox but we don't know yet
18:04:20 <boklm> GeKo: ok, that would work for me
18:04:47 <GeKo> boklm: good. do you have any eta for getting our test suites running?
18:04:52 <GeKo> like on linux first?
18:05:41 <GeKo> tjr: i have added some questions for you. no need to discuss them here i guess
18:05:50 <boklm> I can try to get them running on linux next week
18:05:53 * mcs is here now
18:06:03 <mcs> (sorry for running late)
18:06:08 <GeKo> but we might want to think about not wasting too much time/resources for the esr60 thing
18:06:12 <GeKo> o/
18:06:32 <GeKo> boklm: that would be good, yes.
18:07:28 <GeKo> boklm: oh, and could you finally file the binutils bug this week? I have still hope that we can get that fixed with help from binutils devs so we can use a more recent binutils version
18:07:40 <boklm> ok
18:08:37 <GeKo> sisbell: awesome work. looking forward to try some branches out, and give feedback
18:09:17 <sysrqb> me too!
18:09:30 <GeKo> igt0: please see my sponsor8-related tbb-dev mail, in case i forgot something
18:09:37 <sisbell> cool, learned more about rust than I intended
18:09:45 <sysrqb> :)
18:10:01 <igt0> GeKo, yep, I already updated the document!
18:10:15 <GeKo> oh, great, thanks
18:10:39 <GeKo> mcs: could you put #25696 on your plate for this week?
18:11:10 <GeKo> i guess that's worth the main focus given that we might want to ship a new alpha next week
18:11:43 <mcs> GeKo: Yes, it is on my mind but didn’t make it onto the pad. Sounds like a lot to get done by next week, but we will take a look.
18:12:00 * antonela is around
18:12:12 <GeKo> err: #26595
18:12:17 <antonela> question, will we share about:tor between desktop and mobile?
18:12:22 <GeKo> #25695
18:12:52 <mcs> That’s the one I thought you meant anyway.
18:13:01 <GeKo> just to be clear :)
18:13:03 <antonela> me too
18:13:03 <antonela> ha
18:13:22 <GeKo> antonela: yes, i think so.
18:13:46 <antonela> cool, i made a TBA version too
18:13:49 <GeKo> do we have everything ready to start the coding part?
18:14:23 <antonela> illustrations are not at the final version. We will iterate them this week.
18:14:33 <antonela> but, everything else is ok i think
18:14:50 <GeKo> ok. could you add everything we need to the ticket?
18:14:52 <antonela> both TB8 and TBA
18:15:02 <antonela> yep
18:15:19 <GeKo> mcs: yes, the schedule is tight. if we miss the one for next week, then be it so. bu ti figured we should try at least
18:15:34 <antonela> sorry, do you mean in terms of user flow?
18:16:16 <GeKo> what do you mean?
18:17:17 <antonela> when you said 'everything we need', are you talking about user flow explainer? assets? svg/jpgs?
18:17:39 <GeKo> well, all the things we need for implementing the feature :)
18:17:44 <GeKo> so, i guess all of that
18:17:48 <antonela> oh yes, cool
18:17:54 <antonela> thanks :)
18:20:24 <GeKo> sysrqb: igt0: is there anything i can help with for mobile in particular?
18:20:39 <GeKo> i hope the dust stettles a bit once we have #26401 merged
18:20:56 <GeKo> and i plan to push all the other backports and bugfixes for mobile on top of it
18:21:19 <GeKo> but is there anything apart from that that comes to mind?
18:21:21 <sysrqb> cool
18:21:49 <GeKo> if nothing right now, that's cool too :)
18:22:03 <sysrqb> hrm. i think we may need help with torbutton and noscript interactions
18:22:13 <sysrqb> but igt0 may be looking that already
18:22:18 <sysrqb> *at that
18:23:01 <igt0> sysrqb, yep, as part of the settings work.
18:23:07 <sysrqb> i have it a TBA build running on my phone, and i don't think the default Tor Browser noscript settings are set
18:23:15 <sysrqb> ah, excellent! thanks! :)
18:23:30 <sysrqb> okay, ignore that
18:24:40 <GeKo> okay, aynthing else before moving forward to the discussions part?
18:24:44 <GeKo> *anything
18:25:39 <GeKo> just a reminder i have to be afk again between 8/2 and 8/12 which i am sorry for but as i said on the pad the planning for that was already fixed before mozilla moved the esr :(
18:26:07 <GeKo> okay, discussion time then i guess
18:26:15 <GeKo> tjr: you had some items it seems
18:26:37 <tjr> Yea, maybe not discussion worthy, just some feedback from the Hackign doc
18:26:50 <tjr> We can move on to github
18:27:08 <sysrqb> i can see moving orbot but i tihnk orfox is still relevant for that page, no?
18:27:21 <sysrqb> and we can remove it when TBA is released, i think
18:28:06 <sysrqb> or are you concerned the build instructions are so large that it'll be better documented on another page?
18:28:12 <sysrqb> (for orfox)
18:28:24 <tjr> Sure. Mostly I was just thinking about 'What is discreet enought o go to another page to make this page shorter'
18:28:32 <tjr> Debugging might be another example
18:28:53 <sysrqb> i can see that, i'm not against that
18:29:07 <sysrqb> makes the hacking page more readable
18:29:30 <sysrqb> okay, yeah, we can tihnk about that
18:29:30 <GeKo> okay, let me file a ticket later and then we can come up with a plan and get it done
18:30:07 <GeKo> the github item
18:31:11 <GeKo> that's the reminder to think about isa's mail to tbb-dev in particular for those that were on vacation and/or did not read last weeks meeting notes
18:31:45 <GeKo> i think it's not only about code hosting but about review tools as well
18:32:43 <sysrqb> yeah
18:32:54 <tjr> I love github. I don't care for the centralization of course but yea... it's very easy to use and lends itself to very easily contributing pull requests for tiny improvements
18:32:55 <GeKo> do we as a team have an idea about what we want already?
18:33:01 <tjr> And review comments
18:33:44 <sukhe> I think there are a couple of us already using GitHub in some capacity
18:34:14 <GeKo> so the idea would then be follow the network team model to have the canonical repo at our infra but do the interaction on github?
18:34:15 <mcs> How does the flow work for tor (Network Team)? Do they mirror to github and manually merge PRs or ?
18:34:53 <sysrqb> fetch branches from github, merge into git.tpo repo
18:35:07 <sysrqb> sync commits back to github
18:35:17 <mcs> right; I guess “manually” isn’t quite the right word
18:36:06 <GeKo> would gitlab work as well?
18:36:54 <sysrqb> i assume a similar flow/process is possible, but i don't have any experience with it
18:37:21 <sysrqb> (i also don't have any experience with this github process, but at least we're not the first team trying this with GH :) )
18:37:22 <sukhe> I find GitHub to be more smooth but that may also be because I use GitLab very rarely
18:37:24 <tjr> Probably. Not quite as slick of course; but my main desires are 1) Being able to view diffs in a pretty format and leave comments right there 2) Being able to submit a pull request from my branch in a web ui and 3) being able to edit files in my branch in-browser without needing to edit it locally
18:38:08 <mcs> tjr: how do you use 3) ?
18:38:16 <mcs> or, what do you use that for?
18:38:37 <sysrqb> do we know why the oniongit experiement wasn't successful?
18:38:56 <tjr> mcs: Exhibits a) and b) https://github.com/tomrittervg/tor-browser-build/commit/db075a1a936b8a4432f56bba3b69cde4bdc8e315 https://github.com/tomrittervg/tor-browser-build/commit/f374c28cb89fd091a84a17fcacf6e81e662cf957
18:39:04 <sysrqb> i wonder if anyone on the network-team still uses oniongi
18:39:09 <sysrqb> t
18:39:20 <GeKo> sysrqb: for me it was not successful because the workflow was awkward
18:39:29 <GeKo> that's not necessarily an oniongit issue
18:39:36 <sysrqb> yeah
18:39:38 <mcs> tjr: got it; thanks. So: docs or simple chnages )
18:39:41 <mcs> changes
18:39:43 <GeKo> but was very likely more an issue with the trac + oniongit thing
18:39:47 <asn> sysrqb: i dont think so
18:40:00 <sysrqb> asn: kk, thanks :)
18:40:13 <GeKo> asn: hey, so anything regarding how the network-team is using github question?
18:40:22 <GeKo> are you happy with it?
18:40:27 <asn> GeKo: i havent found this question in the backlog
18:40:39 <asn> personally im happy with it
18:40:47 <asn> i havent used it much with TB i admit
18:40:53 <GeKo> 18:35 <+mcs> How does the flow work for tor (Network Team)? Do they mirror to github
18:40:54 <GeKo> and manually merge PRs or ?
18:41:02 <asn> i know that dgoulet uses it with TB and it seems to work fine, but he is afraid that microsoft is gonna block tor at some point
18:41:18 <asn> eeehm
18:41:32 <asn> we keep the upstream on git.torproject.org
18:41:36 <GeKo> yes, that's an issue which worries me a bit as well
18:41:41 <asn> and we have this gh https://github.com/torproject/tor
18:41:44 <GeKo> (the one dgoulet has)
18:41:54 <asn> which gets somehow updated (maybe using a bot/git hook of some sorts)
18:42:09 <asn> from the git.tpo upstream
18:42:26 <asn> we use PRs just for review purposes
18:42:38 <asn> and they get closed automatically when the branch gets merged upstream
18:42:53 <asn> e.g. https://github.com/torproject/tor/pull/227
18:43:37 <asn> so basically the gh repo for tor is just there to be able to fork off it, and to be able to submit PRs
18:43:48 <asn> but it's not used as upstream in any capacity
18:43:51 <GeKo> and for doing CI
18:43:52 <asn> EOF
18:43:55 <GeKo> ?
18:43:59 <asn> yeah that too
18:44:07 <asn> and we all get CI for our personal branches too
18:44:15 <GeKo> i see
18:44:53 <GeKo> okay, i think that's some food for thought
18:44:54 <sysrqb> right. i guess one major negative of this process is we could lose all review comments if we lose access to the torproject github account
18:45:03 <GeKo> yep
18:45:23 <sysrqb> but worth considering
18:47:18 <GeKo> okay, i'll keep thinking about it a bit but plan to reply to the tbb-dev mail later this week
18:47:27 <GeKo> summarizing where we are at right now
18:47:52 <GeKo> feel free to chime in
18:48:44 <GeKo> i think we wait for arthur about the storm question as he brought it up
18:48:54 <GeKo> just a reminder for folks to think about it
18:49:14 <GeKo> but i guess we can make a decision or a plan next week when everyone is onboard again
18:49:23 <GeKo> so the sandboxing meeting
18:49:41 <GeKo> i plan to read over the thread on tbb-dev as preparation
18:49:51 <GeKo> sysrqb: is there anything else we could/should do?
18:50:19 <GeKo> i guess the agenda is starting to come up with an actionable plan for a sandboxed tor browser :)
18:50:34 <GeKo> and figuring out the pieces involved with it and what mozilla could help with
18:50:50 <GeKo> at least that's what i think would be worthwhile to do
18:50:56 <sysrqb> yes, that is my goald for the meeting
18:51:11 <sysrqb> 1) what did we miss/what other mechanisms are available for us
18:51:32 <GeKo> tjr: do we have some mozilla folks that can make it?
18:51:39 <sysrqb> 2) how do we start designing/implementing this
18:52:43 <sysrqb> I can follow up on the last email and send some high-level information and pointers, if that'll be helpful
18:52:53 <GeKo> i think it would, thanks
18:52:59 <sysrqb> tor-dev@ announcement
18:53:00 <sysrqb> okay
18:53:02 <tjr> Hm. I had pointed the thread out to the sandboxing team last week and they didn't have much to say about it (especially after I reminded them Tor was interested in sandboxing the parent process).  I had planned to report back after the meeting to them with what we discussed and see if they had any thoughts
18:53:29 <GeKo> well, that sounds fine
18:54:05 <GeKo> okay, do we have anything else for today?
18:54:20 <GeKo> it seems we are reaching our 60min...
18:54:32 <tjr> I feel like there's a few paths forward we can pursue; and that we could use this meeting to enumerate them and then try to decide (not in the meeting) which is the overall best approach
18:54:45 <GeKo> yup
18:55:25 <tjr> e.g. "We're gonne run Docker on every platform", "We're gonna use a container format that's the best option for each platform", "We're not going to use a container but we are going to sandbox the parent process using whatever platform-specific mechanisms are available to us..."
18:55:56 <sysrqb> right. pros/cons for all of them
18:56:14 <sysrqb> especially thinking about the requirements for tor browser
18:57:48 <GeKo> alright, let's wrap up then. thanks for the meeting everyone *baf*
18:57:51 <GeKo> #endmeeting