19:00:00 <pili> #startmeeting tor-browser-release 11/13
19:00:00 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed Nov 13 19:00:00 2019 UTC.  The chair is pili. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:00 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:08 <pili> who's around today? :)
19:00:09 <sysrqb> o/
19:00:28 <pili> I've moved our usual pad here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-browser-release-meeting-keep
19:00:44 <pili> I don't have many discussion points for today and I have a feeling it may be a quiet one
19:00:51 <pili> let's see how it goes though :)
19:01:07 <pili> we're missing antonela and possibly GeKo today
19:01:17 <sysrqb> i failed in my plan for tagging tickets with target release versions
19:01:22 <pili> so anyone else, please add any discussion points
19:01:28 <sysrqb> so, that didn't happen
19:01:39 <pili> sysrqb: that's ok, I'm failing at many plans this month myself :)
19:01:42 <pili> there's always next month
19:01:47 <sysrqb> :)
19:02:03 <pili> if no one else shows up we can maybe do the tagging online together
19:02:16 <sysrqb> i guess that is you discussion point, in any case :)
19:02:18 <sysrqb> so, sure
19:02:37 <pili> yeah, I'm sure antonela had some ideas and we can always review with her when she's back
19:02:46 <sysrqb> yep
19:03:53 <pili> ok, we can probably start
19:04:07 <pili> did you have any ideas for how you wanted to do this?
19:04:14 <pili> as in, which pool of tickets to take?
19:05:44 <sysrqb> my plan was going through 201911 and 201912 tickets
19:05:53 <pili> ok, sounds good
19:06:27 <pili> will you share your query with me so we're on the same page?
19:07:09 <sysrqb> 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=~TorBrowserTeam201911&keywords=~TorBrowserTeam201912&max=50&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=owner&col=priority&col=component&col=severity&col=time&col=changetime&col=reviewer&col=reporter&order=changeti
19:07:16 <sysrqb> me
19:07:18 <sysrqb> hrm
19:07:25 <GeKo> oookay
19:07:28 <GeKo> hi!
19:07:33 <GeKo> (sorry for being late)
19:07:54 <sysrqb> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=!closed&keywords=~TorBrowserTeam201911&keywords=~TorBrowserTeam201912&max=50&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=owner&col=priority&col=component&col=severity&col=time&col=changetime&col=reviewer&col=reporter&order=changetime
19:08:21 <pili> welcome GeKo !
19:08:24 <sysrqb> GeKo: o/
19:08:25 <pili> it's just us 3 for now
19:09:00 <GeKo> wfm :)
19:09:01 <pili> we're going to try to match some features/tickets to future releases
19:10:13 <pili> ok, shall we start with #29615 ?
19:10:23 <GeKo> so it's not just the next and next next releases
19:10:26 <GeKo> *release
19:11:01 <pili> I guess we can start with trying to match these with the security releases that we know are coming
19:11:02 <pili> for now
19:11:53 <sysrqb> that was my thought, too.
19:11:58 <GeKo> i think it does not work going ticket by ticket
19:12:05 <GeKo> like from top to down
19:12:17 <GeKo> because we need certain people working on certain
19:12:19 <GeKo> tasks
19:12:48 <GeKo> and without taking those tasks into account it's hard to say something about, say #29615
19:13:38 <GeKo> so, we could think about who should work on #29615
19:13:39 <pili> sure
19:13:46 <GeKo> that's probably boklm
19:14:03 <GeKo> and then we can think about which of those tickets boklm is working on *first*
19:14:13 <sysrqb> that's true, but it still seems helpful for knowing which release a ticket could land in, for roadmapping
19:14:14 <GeKo> and then think about when those will be ready
19:14:22 <sysrqb> and itt'll help with prioritization
19:14:30 <GeKo> and then we can think about when #29615 could make it in
19:14:33 <GeKo> sure
19:14:52 <GeKo> i am just saying we can't do it top-to-down by just looking at that a particular ticket
19:15:08 <GeKo> s/at that/at/
19:16:05 <sysrqb> yeah
19:16:51 <sysrqb> maybe it'll be more helpful if we sort the list of tickets differently
19:16:54 <GeKo> so, boklm would be working on #28325, #25101, #25102, #31988, #18867, #30334 first
19:17:01 <pili> yeah, the thing is if we start looking at tickets all over the place we're going to get lost...
19:17:12 <sysrqb> instead of soring by modification, we can sort by priority
19:17:31 <GeKo> if the prios are correct, yes
19:18:16 <sysrqb> i think they aren't
19:18:25 <sysrqb> but we can change those now too
19:19:17 <GeKo> let's do it
19:20:45 <GeKo> so, if we do the prio thing
19:21:11 <GeKo> i kinda feel that's hard for taking the next months into account
19:21:34 <GeKo> because stuff might not be high prio now (like #30029) but will be soonish
19:22:01 <pili> we can still program #30029 now for around March or just after
19:22:08 <pili> since that's when we should finish it by anyway :)
19:22:34 <pili> so that could go in the ESR68.6 release on 03/10
19:22:41 <GeKo> well, does "finish" mean in "just a release"?
19:22:46 <GeKo> in this case i mean
19:23:01 <pili> or we could aim for that at least
19:23:02 <pili> hmm, actually this should probably only make it to an alpha if anything
19:23:03 <pili> as it's only a PoC
19:23:03 <GeKo> or is nightly here enough?
19:23:47 <pili> nightly could be enough, but then we don't need to tie it to a particular ESR release
19:23:53 <sysrqb> it seems like it would be helpful if we can put all these tickets onto a timeline
19:24:00 <GeKo> yep
19:24:03 <GeKo> (re pili)
19:24:04 <sysrqb> and see how they overlap
19:24:22 <pili> for other S27 activities we might want to try to release something for ESR68.6, e.g #30000
19:25:00 <sysrqb> i hope we can finish some of those tickets earlier
19:25:02 <pili> or even earlier for  ESR68.4
19:25:25 <sysrqb> but that is the last release
19:25:43 <GeKo> what if we tried to find owners for tickets
19:25:44 <sysrqb> and if we get the OTF funding, that'll become complicated
19:25:53 <GeKo> and then group them by prio
19:26:08 <GeKo> so we have a timeline per person
19:26:10 <GeKo> kind of
19:26:15 <sysrqb> that could be a good way for capacity planning
19:26:23 <pili> GeKo: yeah, that's a plan
19:26:24 <GeKo> that too
19:26:26 <sysrqb> i was thinking that was basically what you were saying earlier
19:26:38 <sysrqb> and i was thinking about that, in terms of creating a timeline
19:26:43 <GeKo> aha
19:26:50 <sysrqb> but we can make that explicit, too
19:26:57 <GeKo> okay, let'
19:27:01 <GeKo> s
19:27:14 <GeKo> start with boklm maybe and use the tickets from above
19:27:27 <sysrqb> #28325, #25101, #25102, #31988, #18867, #30334
19:27:30 <sysrqb> okay
19:27:48 <GeKo> and #29615
19:27:53 <sysrqb> right
19:27:58 <GeKo> prio 1 would be the update related tickets
19:28:09 <pili> do we want to assign them to him as an owner now or do we somehow remember this later? :)
19:28:11 <GeKo> and those should be due for the next release
19:28:32 <sysrqb> pili: i was thinking about that
19:28:37 <GeKo> i am fine assigning them directly, but we should keep tbb-team in Cc
19:28:45 <GeKo> because of bug filtering
19:28:58 <sysrqb> yeah. i think we can assign them now, and we can always reassign later, if needed
19:29:01 <pili> sure
19:29:04 <pili> I can do that now
19:29:16 <sysrqb> okay, i won't step on your toes :)
19:31:54 <pili> done
19:32:04 <pili> who's the next "victim"? ;)
19:32:45 <sysrqb> acat?
19:34:27 <sysrqb> oh #22919 should be boklm, right?
19:34:40 <GeKo> i don't think so
19:34:47 <GeKo> but #32475
19:35:00 <GeKo> man, there was a second page i did not see :(
19:35:03 <GeKo> so many tickets
19:35:21 <GeKo> and #25099
19:35:26 <sysrqb> oh, sorry, wrong ticket. #25099
19:35:31 <GeKo> :)
19:35:40 <sysrqb> yeah, that one :)
19:35:44 <GeKo> #32478
19:36:02 * pili goes to check the tickets on the second page also
19:36:03 <GeKo> maybe #32259
19:36:16 <GeKo> #27903
19:40:16 <pili> ok, pulling the trigger
19:40:21 <pili> was waiting to see if there were more
19:40:36 <sysrqb> okay, that should be all the ticketsfor boklm
19:40:38 <sysrqb> yeah
19:41:01 <sysrqb> i'm moving #32327 out of 201912, i think i put it there so we can consider it next month
19:41:19 <sysrqb> but i don't think we should schedule it on the roadmap yet
19:42:03 <pili> ok
19:45:00 <pili> what/who's next? :)
19:45:43 <GeKo> i think we can go with acat
19:45:44 <sysrqb> for acat, #22919 #21952 #23719 #32255
19:45:57 <sysrqb> (not done yet)
19:46:46 <GeKo> maybe #32414
19:49:25 <sysrqb> there are some other tickets that acat could take, but i think we should see how overloaded other people are at the end
19:49:30 <pili> ok
19:49:41 <GeKo> yeah, we probably don't find a moz person for #23719
19:50:27 <GeKo> i think acat might be a good person for #30029, too
19:51:00 <sysrqb> oh yes. miss that
19:51:08 <sysrqb> i think that was our plan
19:51:32 <GeKo> well, it was not decided yet (until now) :)
19:52:39 <sysrqb> heh. yeah, i meant we talked about it with mcs and brade a few  weeks ago, as well
19:53:02 <GeKo> ;)
19:53:17 <pili> would we have enough time for #30029 if acat takes that one though
19:53:20 <sysrqb> it seems we may only assign tickets for two or three per meeting, at this rate
19:53:30 <pili> it will give us less than 3 months to come up with something before the project ends
19:53:37 <pili> sysrqb: hopefully we'll get better at it ;)
19:53:50 <GeKo> pili: maybe, yes
19:53:53 <pili> (I have a hard stop on the hour for another meeting... )
19:54:17 <GeKo> but focused the work we want to do here in stockholm
19:54:32 <pili> sure
19:54:39 <GeKo> like scaled it properly or "down"
19:54:58 <sysrqb> the thought was onion-location should be an easier and smaller task than human-memorable addresses
19:55:01 <GeKo> so if acat started to work on that in jan after the other s27 work is done
19:55:08 <GeKo> i think that could work
19:55:13 <sysrqb> and maybe he can finish that relatively quickly and then move onto addresses
19:55:27 <GeKo> yes
19:56:15 <sysrqb> but, we can see how quickly onion-location is implemented and make adjustments, if needed
19:57:13 <pili> ok
19:58:20 <pili> shall we leave it there for today then?
19:58:23 <pili> or do you want to continue without me?
19:58:24 <sysrqb> it seems we should stop here, and pick it up again next meeting
19:58:28 <pili> ok
19:58:47 <GeKo> i am fine doing a meeting in between
19:59:00 <GeKo> bc next release meeting is in 2 weeks
19:59:16 <GeKo> pili: so what about the about:tor changes for the next release?
19:59:25 <pili> I haven't heard anything yet... :.
19:59:30 <GeKo> we need to start building in 2 weeks
19:59:31 <sysrqb> :/
19:59:32 <pili> I know
19:59:40 <GeKo> which means localization and such
19:59:41 <pili> if there is anything it should be minimal
19:59:49 <pili> or we can't do it
20:00:02 <GeKo> i agree
20:00:30 <sysrqb> okay, we can meet next week and make more progress on this
20:00:38 <GeKo> wfm
20:01:03 <sysrqb> i can send an email
20:01:04 <pili> ok, closing the meeting
20:01:05 <GeKo> sysrqb: fwiw
20:01:06 <pili> #endmeeting