17:59:27 <nickm> #startmeeting weekly network team meeting, 12 Nov 2018
17:59:27 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Nov 12 17:59:27 2018 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:27 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:32 <nickm> hi folks!  I think it's time!
17:59:36 <ahf> hello o/
17:59:45 <asn> o/
18:00:04 <gaba> o/
18:00:12 <catalyst> hi
18:00:19 <nickm> let's start with the roadmap as usual. how's everybody doing?
18:00:49 <ahf> progressing down the road
18:00:52 <nickm> Personally, I'm pretty swamped with stuff, but I think I'll still make progress on #27359 and #28335 this week
18:01:10 <asn> wrt wtf-pad i think we've done pretty good progress on review and testing. i think the next plan is to figure out what needs to be done to get it merged. mike has a big TODO file that we need to triage.
18:01:16 <nickm> catalyst: what do you think the odds are that you'll be done with the pubsub review soon? I'd like to use it in #28335
18:01:39 <ahf> i spoke with HC about ARM64 builds, he'd like us to do a profile of 32-bit vs. 64-bit ARM performance before they include 64-bit builds in their orbot
18:01:54 <ahf> i'm going to try to hear how many devices we have using 64-bit android from our google play store people (isa/matt i think)
18:02:02 <ahf> to see if they think it's worth including in orbot
18:02:08 <ahf> they = TGP
18:03:01 <mikeperry> asn: it does need a lot more test coverage. that is the bulk of the TODO now
18:03:04 <asn> nickm: i'd also be interested in your opinion about getting the wtf-pad branch merged. where do you think we are? i know we need to write some unittests. what else?
18:03:15 <asn> mikeperry: agreed
18:03:16 <mikeperry> that plus addtl github comments
18:03:17 <catalyst> nickm: looking
18:03:27 <asn> mikeperry: i can write some unittests this week
18:03:46 <mikeperry> asn: ok ool. maybe we can divide them up?
18:03:47 <nickm> I think I need to review it again for control flow.  It would be really helpful if the module documented all of the in-points and out-points for its calls.
18:03:49 <mikeperry> possibly as part of triage
18:03:51 <asn> mikeperry: yes sounds good.
18:03:54 <nickm> And it needs testing like crazy
18:04:08 <nickm> unit & Integration
18:04:09 <mikeperry> nickm: it does.. in the comments and the header. I can add more comments
18:04:12 <mikeperry> it has a lot...
18:04:27 <mikeperry> maybe it got lost in the noise of all the other comments ;)
18:04:39 <nickm> maybe; I'll look again
18:04:41 <juga> o/
18:04:48 <asn> it's been a big review and you've been doing a great job responding, mikeperry
18:04:50 <mikeperry> also the interfaces are a separate commit
18:05:04 <mikeperry> so you can review just the in-call points
18:05:10 <nickm> mikeperry: did it make sense what I said about the tor_assert() usage?  That has hurt us a *lot* in the past
18:05:16 <mikeperry> that's why I ordered the coimmits the way I did and recommended that review order
18:05:31 <mikeperry> nickm: I think I did not get to that point of the code review yet
18:05:38 <mikeperry> I'm just fixing them up in order
18:05:53 <nickm> ok
18:06:11 <nickm> short version: tor_assert() is best used only for truly unrecoverable errors where it is better to crash
18:06:18 <asn> mikeperry: i might not have time to do triaging tonight, but i can do unittests and coverage tomorrow all day.
18:06:30 <nickm> since otherwise it tends to make us have DOS bugs
18:06:37 <asn> mikeperry: so perhaps i can start tomorrow and see where it takes me, and maybe also find a way to divide the remaining work?
18:06:51 <asn> agreed about asserts i also find many asserts that were not quite necessary
18:06:55 <asn> *found
18:07:00 <mikeperry> yah I thought I used the non-crash assert macros like BUG() and tor_nonfatal_assert()
18:07:06 <mikeperry> maybe I missed one
18:07:24 <nickm> search the branch for instances; I think I saw a lot, but that was last week and time passes
18:07:44 <nickm> dgoulet, ahf, catalyst, teor4 (in absentia) -- how are with with the s8-bootstrap stuff?
18:08:09 <asn> dgoulet is on some sort of canadian public day holiday
18:08:18 <asn> just fwiw
18:08:21 <nickm> ah
18:08:35 <ahf> progress on #28179, landed some patches to my GH, need a look at somet hings i broke with rebasing last night, but i think david gets to look at it tomorrow and then we can start looking at #28180
18:08:36 * catalyst plans to do some #27167 work this week
18:08:41 <ahf> and then after that i'll jump on #27100
18:08:59 <ahf> (i'm not sure if we have merged the PT parts of s8 into s8-bootstrap now, or?)
18:09:15 <nickm> I am just bad at keeping them separate in my mind :/
18:09:24 <ahf> right, ok, i think it's fine to group them
18:09:45 <nickm> gaba: anything else on the roadmap?
18:09:53 <gaba> no, you covered it all
18:10:05 <gaba> catalyst: anything else about the review of the pubsub ticket?
18:10:18 <nickm> catalyst: (did you come up with any ETA guesses on the pubsub review?)
18:10:47 <catalyst> nickm: i've broken the review work into subsections; i can comment on the other smaller sections by tomorrow maybe
18:11:21 <nickm> great. is that the review done, or will there be more after that?
18:11:58 <nickm> (this is a good time to segue into looking at the review assignments)
18:12:33 <nickm> (is everybody okay with their assignments this week?  I see that nobody has more than 3, which is good
18:12:36 <nickm> )
18:12:38 <catalyst> nickm: i think the meat of the dispatch code will take longer; should have a better idea soon
18:13:07 <nickm> hm, okay. Please keep me updated
18:13:36 <catalyst> ok
18:13:43 <nickm> Any comments on reviewr assignments?  If not, rotations!
18:13:58 <nickm> we have dgoulet on bug triage and nickm on CI
18:14:02 <nickm> I'll do my best :)
18:14:26 <nickm> it seems like appveyor is busted again, though: #28399
18:14:45 <nickm> Who understands the appveyor build environment well enough to help me fix that one?
18:14:53 <nickm> It looks like an appveyor issue, not an issue with tor
18:16:26 <gaba> anyone? :)
18:16:35 <nickm> I'll see if teor has a guess; they've done work there before
18:16:47 <ahf> i wont say that i know it, but i might be someone who can try out some commands locally too
18:17:11 <nickm> okay
18:17:33 <ahf> looks odd that we find it in configure script
18:17:48 <nickm> autoconf looks at what will link, not what the headers have
18:17:54 <nickm> if they don't match, though, there's a problem
18:18:02 <ahf> ye
18:18:20 <ahf> what happens if we don't install an openssl lib?
18:18:29 <ahf> and just use the that is on the system?
18:18:36 <ahf> (we can talk about this afterwards or later)
18:18:46 <nickm> let's try after :)
18:19:24 <nickm> please have a look at the reminders: it's not too early to book Brussels flights!
18:19:35 <nickm> (and they get more expensive if we wait too long)
18:19:58 <nickm> also please remember that s8 gets priority till it's done
18:20:02 <nickm> on to announcements?
18:20:04 <ahf> nod
18:20:15 <gaba> yep
18:20:28 <nickm> The upcoming releases we need to do have gotten complicated enough that I tried to make a timeline
18:21:05 <nickm> I don't think we can do a stable on Dec 15, but early Jan is plausible
18:21:42 <nickm> if no questions there, on to discussion.
18:22:00 <nickm> I think we talked about O2.5 a little, and ahf scheduled the snowflake meeting.  any more on those??
18:22:10 <nickm> oops, only one "?" intended
18:22:18 <gaba> yes, that is an anouncement and not discussion really
18:23:04 <ahf> yeah, the kick off meeting that i now call it :-S
18:23:08 <ahf> in lack of a better name
18:23:13 <nickm> cool
18:23:20 <gaba> :)
18:23:51 <nickm> Next discussion item is -- I've marked about 3-4 tickets with "035-rc-blocker?". By the end of the week at latest, can people tag any other stuff that might be 035-rc-blocker?
18:24:14 <nickm> The meaning here is "If this is not addressed, we should not call our next release a 'release candidate'."
18:25:09 <nickm> also, "If this is not addressed, we should not release stable." :)
18:25:31 <nickm> Is end-of-week reasonable for everybody scanning the 035 tickets for that?  Or I could do it if everybody trusts me, but we might miss something
18:26:00 <gaba> it would be great if people nod :)
18:26:13 <asn> it's good with me :)
18:26:19 <gaba> ty
18:26:31 <nickm> ok. hearing no objections...
18:26:36 <asn> there is no ticket that is urgent for 035 on my side, but i will also re-triage to make sure
18:27:01 <mikeperry> yah same afaik
18:27:05 <nickm> my next discussion question is "do we need a different process for 'proposed' tickets?"
18:27:16 <nickm> the list gets long, but we seem to skip over them at meetings from lack of time
18:27:36 <nickm> should we do something here to change our process?
18:28:08 <gaba> mmm, not sure what you mean here.
18:28:37 <asn> for me, if something is 'proposed', but does not get promoted to 'must', it can be ignored for the release
18:28:41 <nickm> like, should we ignore xxx-proposed?  Should we ask people to advocate particular items they care about at the meeting?
18:29:12 <asn> so right now all 035-roadmap-proposed that do not get promoted to must, can IMO be dropped from the release
18:29:19 <asn> without further discussion maybe
18:29:30 <nickm> I agree ... I'm asking, do we need any process to make sure we look at them from time to time?
18:29:41 <gaba> ahh, i see, yes, we should review the proposed each time to see if we are not missing a must
18:29:51 <nickm> there is a step in the meeting pad saying we should do that, but we seem not to be getting to it.
18:29:58 <nickm> Maybe we need some other process?
18:30:41 <nickm> OTOH, I am pretty happy about how 035 and 040 have gone...
18:30:43 <gaba> oops, i missed that
18:31:50 <gaba> ok, let's think about it a little for next meeting. For the 035 it was not so many tickets
18:31:58 <nickm> ack
18:32:51 <nickm> Any other discussion things or help requests?  (I see that teor has a query for me.)
18:32:52 <asn> fwiw i usually look at the proposed stuff as part of the monday meetings (e.g. i saw the url in the pad today). if that doesn't work very well, we can consider sending an email to the network-team list periodically.
18:33:08 <asn> for people to retriage their tickets
18:33:15 <nickm> plausible
18:33:25 <nickm> it's good somebody is looking at it
18:33:30 <asn> altho usually the tickets i really care about i monitor them and try to have them triaged properly
18:33:45 <asn> sorry for the times i havent done it well enough :)
18:34:51 <nickm> hey, thanks for doing it at all
18:35:26 <nickm> any more for this week, folks?  We've gone through this pretty fast
18:35:37 <mikeperry> yah nice
18:35:44 <ahf> :-)
18:35:54 <gaba> yep
18:37:13 <nickm> okay, hearing nothing else, we can call this done.  Woot!
18:37:19 <nickm> See you online, everybody!
18:37:21 <nickm> #endmeeting