16:58:43 <ahf> #startmeeting network team meeting, 8th of february 2021
16:58:43 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Feb  8 16:58:43 2021 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:58:43 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:58:53 <nickm> hihi
16:58:56 <ahf> Hello everybody
16:58:58 <ahf> let me find the pad
16:59:08 <ahf> https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2021.1-keep
16:59:09 <ahf> there
16:59:43 <asn> hey hey
16:59:53 <ahf> yo asn
17:00:04 <ahf> do we have dgoulet in the house?
17:00:27 <ahf> how are we all doing with our boards? https://gitlab.torproject.org/groups/tpo/core/-/boards
17:00:44 * asn updating mine
17:00:50 <dgoulet> yes
17:01:04 <nickm> I think we need to add tickets for some of the stuff that we talked about on Thursday.
17:01:09 <nickm> not sure if now is the time or we should do it later
17:01:41 <ahf> my brain is so high in context switches right now that i have no memory of what we talked about thursday without looking at my notes from there
17:02:01 <ahf> ah, from the gaba planning for the next period and the pad we made?
17:02:04 <nickm> yeah
17:02:15 <ahf> maybe we should do that on thursday unless there are some of it that has to begin now?
17:02:37 <nickm> ok.  or everybody can do their part after the meeting, and we can mop up on thursday?
17:02:50 <ahf> sounds good
17:03:19 <ahf> ok!
17:03:39 <ahf> i need to make a ticket to the etherpad people on handling URL's with [] in
17:03:48 <ahf> are we OK with MR assignment?
17:03:53 <asn> i assigned today early
17:03:58 <asn> not sure if anything else has spawned since then
17:04:12 * asn looks
17:04:15 <ahf> and in that context: did we decide on how to handle "needs revision" state now? is it with the label or did we find a smarter way?
17:04:21 <asn> ah yes two things
17:04:21 <nickm> i have two more i just made for 045
17:04:34 <asn> yeah those two
17:04:52 <asn> ok taking both. i seem to have the smallest review list atm.
17:04:59 <nickm> thanks!
17:05:11 <nickm> i'm okay with needs_revision if people actually see it :)
17:05:20 <asn> ahf: hmmm
17:05:24 <asn> good question
17:05:30 <nickm> tor!281 and tor!273 are the needs_revision ones I'm reviewing
17:05:30 <ahf> how does folks prefer this? the reviewer field changed this quite a bit
17:05:35 <asn> yeah...
17:05:50 <asn> one approach with big overhead is:
17:06:06 <asn> - when we assign reviews, we remove the previous assigned person and add a reviewer
17:06:15 <asn> - when reviewer wants to request revision. they add back assigned person
17:06:28 <asn> so being assigned to a ticket means you have leftover work there
17:06:52 <asn> i dont really like it
17:06:53 <nickm> I'm okay with the current approach so far
17:06:53 <asn> but it's an idea
17:06:58 <asn> what's the current approach?
17:07:07 <ahf> i think assignee often makes very little sense now that we have reviewer though. we have the flashflow ticket from pastly where it might become that mike or me becomes the assignee on that, but usually the author == the assignee for ... what i would guess the majority of our MR's
17:07:15 <nickm> put needs_revision on stuff that needs revision; remove it when you update?
17:07:18 <asn> hm
17:07:42 <asn> that could work, but we would need a separate query to monitor needs_revision tickets
17:07:44 <dgoulet> I think the label is legit approach imo
17:07:51 <asn> my current workflow is centered around the todo list
17:08:18 <asn> not sure if adding the label would update the todo list
17:08:31 <dgoulet> it won't
17:08:32 <ahf> ok, the needs revision label it is
17:08:37 <ahf> it wont update todo
17:08:43 <asn> ok
17:08:43 <ahf> but it shows as a number icon in the top right corner
17:09:04 <dgoulet> looking at your MRs would be the thing to do including the Todo
17:09:08 <asn> right
17:09:08 <asn> ok
17:09:28 <ahf> ok!
17:09:30 <ahf> sounds like label it is
17:09:33 * ahf goes to next time
17:09:51 <ahf> no new 0.4.5 tickets
17:10:18 <ahf> ... and no discussion items
17:10:43 <ahf> that means unless anybody have anything we need to add now, then we transfer the mic to mike and then we talk s61
17:11:37 <dgoulet> so
17:12:02 <mikeperry> I keep getting distracted from conflux discussions and proposal by other things; hopefully that will change this week
17:12:12 <mikeperry> that is generally true of s61 last week, it feels like
17:12:15 <dgoulet> There is at least one ticket that is critical for 045 stable at themoment I can see
17:12:15 <ahf> dgoulet: did you want to add something or?
17:12:46 <dgoulet> we seems to have 12 tickets in 045-stable
17:12:53 <dgoulet> and no 045-post-stable milestone I think
17:13:04 <dgoulet> so out of those 12, I would like to nominate some for "MUST GO BEFORE STABLE"
17:13:14 <dgoulet> how do I do that? :)
17:13:50 <ahf> hm
17:14:15 <ahf> my connection to gitlab is quite slow today, going to the page
17:15:24 <ahf> hm, you are thinking of having another milestone for 0.4.5 ? wont that milestone just change meaning when the version is released as stable?
17:15:53 <dgoulet> no
17:16:02 <dgoulet> what we have usually is -stable and -post-stable no?
17:16:13 <ahf> i think we have a -freeze and a -stable ?
17:16:20 <dgoulet> Tor 0.4.5.x-post-stable
17:16:22 <dgoulet> that one exsits
17:16:23 <ahf> and they are months apart if you put them on a calendar
17:16:42 <dgoulet> which means that ANY ticket in -stable has to go in before we actually release
17:16:47 <dgoulet> and the rest should go in post-stable
17:16:48 <ahf> i don't see the x-post-stable ?
17:16:54 <dgoulet> https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/milestones
17:17:00 <dgoulet> it is right there
17:17:05 <ahf> i see oh!
17:17:08 <ahf> there is missing the :
17:17:24 <dgoulet> yup, lets add it
17:17:35 <ahf> created in december and never touched after
17:17:44 <dgoulet> anyway... I really think we have to do that work because I fear things will slip :S
17:17:51 <dgoulet> considering we are 7 days away from stable
17:17:53 <ahf> sure, nickm, are you fine with this? you usually have the overview when the releases are to be made?
17:18:16 <nickm> sure; no problem...
17:18:30 <nickm> though maybe some of this belongs in 046 instead of 045 at this point?  Up to y'all.
17:19:24 <dgoulet> plausible
17:19:42 <ahf> maybe we should rate our own things and consider them for post-stable and 0.4.6?
17:19:49 <dgoulet> ok so we are in agreement that the -stable milestone MUST be empty at our release
17:20:00 <nickm> yup
17:20:59 <ahf> yes
17:21:03 <ahf> excellent
17:21:12 <ahf> dgoulet: that answered what you were looking for?
17:21:25 <dgoulet> yes
17:21:31 <ahf> ok, mikeperry you want to go?
17:21:40 <asn> i have one ticket of those 12; do you need me to help with any others that we think should go in stable?
17:22:27 <mikeperry> I think the main thing to check on is if asn has time/machines to do a 70% cutoff test of onion services for https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/40157, or if we should just yolo merge
17:22:44 <ahf> i am good, one issue i have is a bit of a mystery and the other one only affects old glibc's and a test case on musl. the latter i will get to this week as part of the CI work i think
17:23:00 <asn> mikeperry: yep i can do it
17:23:06 <mikeperry> nice, thanks
17:23:07 <asn> mikeperry: i have actually started doing it
17:23:11 <mikeperry> great
17:23:11 <asn> but i will have results tomorrow
17:23:52 <mikeperry> other than that I hope to have time to dig back into conflux proposal for objective 3
17:24:03 <mikeperry> juga,geko: anything from you?
17:24:11 <juga> not from me
17:24:24 <GeKo> we try to wrap all important things up in feb for sbws
17:24:46 <mikeperry> awesome
17:24:53 <GeKo> so that we can actually start planning to deploy sbws in march
17:24:58 <SomeHacker> what is this "meeting pad"? Is anyone (including abusers) allowed to edit it?
17:25:03 <GeKo> (or: start planning in march)
17:25:28 <ahf> SomeHacker: i mean... abusers should stay away from it ideally
17:25:36 <nickm> If somebody abuses it, we revert. If they're persistent, we roll our eyes and switch to something private.
17:26:17 <nickm> mostly people have better things to do
17:27:26 <mikeperry> ok I think that is all for s61 then
17:27:31 <ahf> awesome
17:27:35 <ahf> i think we are done with the meeting then?
17:27:38 <nickm> couple of quick reminders before we close:
17:27:42 <ahf> ok
17:28:19 <nickm> 1) Planned release date for 045 is in 1 week.  Please try to get anything pending done and merged asap... or postponed
17:28:28 <ahf> *nods*
17:28:43 <nickm> 2) I forget what #2 was -- but everybody have a great week!
17:29:00 <ahf> sounds good, have a good week folks o/
17:29:02 <ahf> #endmeeting