17:59:12 <ahf> #startmeeting Network team meeting, 27 January 2020
17:59:12 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Jan 27 17:59:12 2020 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:12 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:14 <ahf> woh!
17:59:19 <ahf> hello network-team :-)
17:59:26 <asn> hello!!
17:59:29 <ahf> our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2020.1-keep
17:59:31 <gaba> hello!
17:59:46 <catalyst> o/
18:00:05 <ahf> everybody, please remember we have the retrospective in 2 days on the 29th! and think about things you wanna talk about there :-)
18:00:11 <dgoulet> hi
18:00:20 <ahf> let's start out with roadmap!
18:00:23 <ahf> Let's check and update our roadmap: What's done, and what's coming up? Use: https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/boards
18:01:04 <ahf> are everybody good there?
18:02:11 <asn> im good
18:02:16 <nickm> hihi!
18:02:27 <nickm> I'm good there
18:02:37 <dgoulet> good
18:02:47 <ahf> great!
18:02:55 <ahf> are we good with reviewers assignment this week?
18:03:10 <nickm> looks like I didn't get anything new?
18:03:16 <ahf> there are 3 unassigned tickets
18:03:28 <asn> dgoulet: ^
18:03:35 <asn> two of them seem to be swbws tickets
18:03:38 <asn> we are not sure how to assign those
18:03:53 <asn> (dgoulet was thinking that perhaps we should ask geko)
18:03:57 <ahf> i can take the first one, i need to read up on sbws too
18:04:08 <ahf> hope to learn more about it on friday in brussels too
18:04:11 <asn> and the third ticket should not be reviewed yet
18:04:39 <dgoulet> yeah the #33029 is tricky and I need to talk to more people about that one
18:04:47 <dgoulet> so no specific reviewer for now
18:04:58 <ahf> i've taken the first one. anybody up for reviewing #30733 ?
18:05:21 <ahf> we should build some more domain knowledge of sbws and teor have been doing a lot of that, but teor is in ipv6 land right now
18:05:55 <dgoulet> after net health team kickoff last week, there is much to talk about sbws
18:06:04 <ahf> if #33029 is not supposed to be reviewed should we move it to something else than needs_review ?
18:06:05 <dgoulet> and I believe an email is coming soon on our side about it
18:06:17 <dgoulet> ahf: well it is... just that I need to hand pick someone :P
18:06:29 <dgoulet> (to talk about ideas here)
18:06:33 <dgoulet> <cough>nickm</cough>
18:06:47 <gaba> catalyst: you offered before to do sbws. is this something you can take now?
18:07:03 <catalyst> gaba: i could, but would probably need lots of ramp-up
18:07:06 <ahf> ah. i'd just like to be able to point people to that list and have folks check in in the morning if there are stuff on the list that they think they can review so we do less and less assignment and more where people pull fro the review queue
18:07:46 <ahf> i've also asked GeKo now
18:07:58 <ahf> worst case i can try to look at it while i'm close to juga on friday too
18:08:01 <nickm> sure, I'll review if you pick me. :)
18:08:14 <dgoulet> nickm: need to schedule a discussion time with you actually, we'll ping you after
18:08:20 <dgoulet> nickm: _thanks_
18:08:21 <ahf> sweet
18:08:22 <nickm> i don't know sbws well enough to review that one sadly :/
18:08:27 <nickm> dgoulet: ok!
18:08:56 <dgoulet> we should _really_ have a "sort-of-maintainer" for sbws within net team imo
18:08:59 <ahf> nickm: no worries, you already have some tickets with your name on for review
18:09:02 <dgoulet> at least someone that can lead it
18:09:41 <ahf> dgoulet: yeah. i think we should also find a way to do this well while teor can focus on v6 things right now
18:09:52 <ahf> i'm gonna try to dive a bit into it, i already looked a bit at it last week to prepare for fosdem
18:09:58 <ahf> ok
18:10:05 <ahf> we have a lot of discussion items that i think teor has added
18:10:14 <gaba> agree on the need to have 1 or 2 mantainers in the net team
18:10:35 <gaba> sbws related...
18:10:43 <ahf> one is about v6 proposals for s55. teor already wrote one, they are working on the next two, so please wrap your head around it and give some feedback :-)
18:11:13 <ahf> does anybody have anything they want to say about this topic other than that?
18:12:03 <ahf> i take that as a no
18:12:11 <ahf> oki! then 2nd item is about backports
18:12:23 <ahf> and i think the big two questions are:
18:12:28 <ahf> Should we backport all the fixes that we tested in 0.4.2-stable and
18:12:31 <ahf> Should we do the backports before we put out the next 0.4.1 and 0.4.2 stable this week?
18:12:59 <nickm> IMO we should only do safe necessary and well-tested ones.
18:13:19 <nickm> we can do ones that are less necessary if they are safe and well-tested
18:13:30 <nickm> we can do ones that are less well-tested if they are absolutely necessary and safe
18:13:33 <nickm> etc
18:13:54 <ahf> do you want to coordinate with teor, they write over signal, on whether something has to be done this week before releases?
18:14:05 <nickm> ok.
18:14:15 <nickm> #action nickm coordinates with teor over signal about backports
18:14:32 <ahf> yeah
18:14:53 <ahf> ok, i think that was all on that item. the next one is about getting more mainline mergers. teor is interested in getting more master mergers
18:15:16 <ahf> i'm still up for it, but it wont be until middle of february i think before i'm gonna get involved with that
18:15:26 <asn> fwiw i was away from reviews/merges for the past weeks, but now im back
18:15:55 <ahf> ah, true
18:16:04 <asn> but agreed we need more mergers anyhow
18:16:15 <ahf> i don't know if it's because things are queing up or if it's just a general thing that it is good if more people can do more things?
18:16:18 <ahf> i'd assume the latter
18:16:38 <dgoulet> latter I believe yes
18:16:47 <dgoulet> we don't have huge backlogs of merge ready stuff at all
18:17:19 <asn> atm we dont indeed
18:17:32 <ahf> sweet
18:17:43 <ahf> ok, catalyst have an item and requests some debugging help:
18:17:44 <ahf> Should we backport all the fixes that we tested in 0.4.2-stable and
18:17:48 <ahf> err
18:17:50 <ahf> #qubeslife
18:17:53 <ahf> - anyone who's familiar with either gcc or clang AddressSanitizer/LeakSanitizer want to help troubleshoot why it's not reporting leaks?
18:17:56 <ahf> there
18:18:17 <nickm> I can try
18:18:29 <nickm> are there repro instructions?
18:18:33 <nickm> it's working for me...
18:18:43 <catalyst> nickm: we can talk after the meeting
18:18:47 <nickm> great
18:18:59 <ahf> cool
18:19:07 <ahf> does anybody else have anything they want to chat about this week?
18:19:38 <nickm> "not i" said the duck
18:19:57 <gaba> it seems good
18:19:59 <ahf> :-D
18:20:01 <ahf> cool!
18:20:03 <ahf> thanks all
18:20:05 <ahf> #endmeeting