18:00:02 <donuts> #startmeeting Tor Browser Release Meeting 2022-3-21
18:00:02 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Mar 21 18:00:02 2022 UTC.  The chair is donuts. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:02 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:59 <donuts> okay please add future releases for the next couple of weeks and any discussion items to the pad :)
18:02:09 <PieroV> future releases: should be 11.5a8 instead of 11.5a6?
18:02:18 <richard> *ahem*
18:03:01 <donuts> is aguestuser around? (ping)
18:03:45 <aguestuser> o/
18:05:16 <donuts> oh hello :)
18:06:17 <donuts> is that it? just 11.5a8 and 11.5a9?
18:06:21 <richard> ugh just ignore my apparenlty having no idea what happened last week
18:06:29 <richard> all the builds blend together
18:07:05 <aguestuser> we are (i am) itching to get next TBA stable out the door
18:07:13 <richard> but re 3 buildes: I'm all set up on tb-build-03 now, so I should be able to be a semi-reliable builder going forward
18:07:28 <aguestuser> (assuming we fix crash bug by updating to v99)
18:07:44 <richard> but not a reliable uploader due to unreliable internet access
18:07:45 <donuts> what's the eta for that aguestuser?
18:07:52 <aguestuser> but we're constrained by moz release calendar (which rolls over on april ~4) to do that
18:08:17 <donuts> ah yeah so it's not for this release cycle
18:08:22 <PieroV> will the next stable be based on 99 as well?
18:08:28 <aguestuser> PieroV: that's the idea
18:08:39 <aguestuser> we're rebasing onto fenix 99.0bX right now
18:09:12 <PieroV> yep, I've started the review of the MR while I was waiting for the building to finish
18:09:51 <aguestuser> and come april 5 upstream 99 will move to release (and we will rebase onto 99.0 and ship stable)
18:10:10 <aguestuser> in other words, the branch we are rebasing off of will no longer be "beta" at that point
18:10:45 <aguestuser> and we can build our stable release on top of it
18:11:19 <PieroV> okay, thanks
18:11:44 <aguestuser> (took me a while to grok that this is the intended flow!)
18:12:24 <aguestuser> so, assuming tba rebase looks good in nightly and alpha, there will be one more (hopefully uneventful) rebase around the beginning of april to move those changes into stable
18:13:37 <aguestuser> oh also, relevant numbering thing... on apr 5, fenix will move from 99.0.bX to 99.1
18:14:05 <aguestuser> or 99.1.0 (as it were)
18:15:33 <aguestuser> given the urgency of getting stable TBA out the door to fix crash, perhaps we could ship TBA first next month?
18:15:44 <aguestuser> /s/ship TBA/ship TBA stable
18:15:50 <aguestuser> ie: as 11.0.9?
18:16:31 <PieroV> works for me
18:16:58 <richard> 11.0.10 you mean?
18:17:10 <aguestuser> sure! (what are numbers anyway... ;))
18:17:14 <richard> lol
18:17:22 <donuts> have we given any more thought to fixing TB version numbers?
18:17:23 <richard> we can always do a joint release
18:18:02 <aguestuser> richard: +1. was also trying to work off new knowledge that the uploading process is a lot faster for android. (which i didn't know until last time we had this meeting)
18:18:18 <richard> hmmm
18:18:32 <aguestuser> donuts: i think separate version numbers would in most cases make my life easier when planning. but not sure what the user-facing effect would be...
18:18:42 <aguestuser> (since people seem used to the current  numbering schema?)
18:18:42 <richard> ok we can do a joint version, release prep, etc
18:18:48 <richard> but build android first
18:18:53 <aguestuser> richard: +1
18:18:54 <richard> then desktop seprately
18:19:11 <richard> what date are you targeting?
18:19:14 <donuts> aguestuser: yeah – it's not as if android and desktop have feature parity anyway, so I think separate would be fine with the community
18:19:23 <aguestuser> richard: let's say Apr-7?
18:19:27 <donuts> plus staggered numbering is currently causing some minor confusion regardless
18:19:28 <aguestuser> 2 days after rollover?
18:19:46 <richard> oh ok
18:19:51 <aguestuser> but sooner if the build goes smoothly?
18:19:52 <richard> yeah that's no problem desktop side
18:19:59 <richard> i'd be beginning rebsaing march 28th/29th
18:21:18 <richard> actually back up a sec
18:21:26 <aguestuser> backing up!
18:22:10 <richard> so desktop stable rebasing is currently scheduled for 28th, and building on 29th/30th/ etc and shipping april 5th
18:22:23 <richard> so stable wouldn't get in the way of android
18:22:50 <richard> but I can delay desktop alpha (which would be around the time as android stable)
18:23:12 <aguestuser> sounds good!
18:23:12 <richard> then we can have a joint android/desktop alpha the following week after android stable ships
18:23:47 <richard> ok, sounds good
18:24:01 <aguestuser> ack/+1
18:24:51 <richard> ok updated the Future releases section in the pad
18:25:40 <richard> alright what's next
18:25:52 <PieroV> the go thing
18:26:11 <PieroV> But I don't think that it is an emergency and we can carry on with 1.17 until next releases
18:27:50 <richard> yeah it can wait
18:29:59 <richard> ok re: UX things missing in 11.0.9
18:30:11 <richard> donuts: I merged the remainder into stable last week
18:30:15 <donuts> ya so my first question is: why lol
18:30:16 <richard> so should be in 11.0.10
18:30:33 <donuts> and my second question is: are there potentially other (less visible) fixes that are going missing too?
18:30:46 <donuts> I think this is the second or third time this has happened since the beginning of the quarter
18:30:49 <richard> so those two got missed from the mega list
18:30:59 <donuts> oh they just weren't in stable already?
18:31:03 <donuts> i may have misremembered
18:31:13 <richard> right, so those two were in the first round of backporting
18:31:23 <richard> called out by you I should sday
18:31:33 <richard> but as i was going through the build and verifying
18:31:59 <richard> the missing icon in tor:connect was falsely assumed to be merged, because the broken issue only shows up in full builds (not local ones)
18:32:38 <donuts> ahh okay
18:32:44 <richard> and the incorrect sentence casing, was me failing to understand the gitlab ticket and verified the wrong string
18:33:07 <donuts> I did a very cursory check but only tested the issues that were linked in the older "missing ui fixes" ticket
18:33:22 <donuts> tor-browser#40809
18:33:27 <richard> yeah
18:33:35 <donuts> and it looks like it was just those three
18:33:51 <donuts> i.e. those linked to in tor-browser#40453
18:34:04 <donuts> anyway so we're probably good then?
18:34:20 <richard> I believe so
18:34:28 <donuts> great :D
18:34:45 <richard> we'll see if our new ticket linking/backport labeling system *actually* works going forward
18:34:45 <donuts> we can skip my next discussion item since we already briefly covered it on #tor-dev
18:34:53 <richard> ah yes
18:34:56 <donuts> richard: haha sure thing
18:35:02 <donuts> fwiw I love the format
18:35:02 <richard> so that segues into my point
18:35:12 <donuts> and it also gives me an official place to report these things
18:35:25 <richard> how is the implementation of boklm's proposal working for everyone?
18:36:09 <donuts> errr I meant tor-browser-build#40453
18:36:13 <aguestuser> well!
18:36:16 <richard> yeah :)
18:36:26 <donuts> what's the logic for where the "prepare" ticket lands?
18:37:03 <donuts> oh hang on, will it always be in tbb?
18:37:23 <richard> ah yeah the mega ticket is always in tor-browser-build
18:37:29 <donuts> got it, sorry I was being silly
18:37:31 <richard> it's generated from a gitlab template
18:38:15 <donuts> well I think it's great :D
18:38:49 <richard> alright, as i said i guess we'll soon discover if it actually works for tracking backports in practice
18:38:54 <richard> alright that's all from me
18:39:17 <donuts> nothing else from me either
18:39:25 <PieroV> I have nothing either
18:39:40 <donuts> pushing the button in 3..
18:39:42 <donuts> 2...
18:39:45 <donuts> 1...
18:39:51 <donuts> . (extra dot for 3)
18:39:54 <donuts> #endmeeting