13:29:45 #startmeeting 13:29:45 Meeting started Wed Apr 22 13:29:45 2015 UTC. The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:29:45 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:30:47 hi all! 13:30:50 looks like it's meeting time! 13:30:53 hi 13:30:58 I see helix and isabela and dgoulet and Yawning 13:31:06 and /me 13:31:13 and teor ! 13:31:20 o/ 13:31:27 hi meeting 13:31:34 (http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf) 13:31:40 and athena! 13:31:55 Hi, everybody! 13:32:06 Let's start with statuses 13:32:41 I've been mainly swamped on ED-transition tasks, but I managed to get a sponsorS thing written for isabela. I hear I need to write more in order to help prep a report. 13:32:59 I also wrote an implementation of that PCSA algorithm I've been going on about 13:34:19 and hm. Main priorities for this coming week are mainly keep people from freaking out, get enough sleep, help with everything I'm needed on, and learn more about bank accounts really work than I ever knew before 13:34:26 oh, and merge patches 13:34:37 that's always important. 13:34:41 Who's next? 13:34:46 I can go 13:34:53 Fixed up #6411, needs review again 13:35:09 fixed up #15652 needs review again 13:35:21 probably can just take #15759 13:35:41 apart from that got stuck doing pt reporting and sent isabella a gigantic wall of text 13:35:46 need to write more apparently 13:36:00 so more pt stuff in the future in addition to core tor 13:36:19 also I'm mentoring one of the two TSPO students that will require core-tor changes I think 13:36:22 so yay 13:36:25 Question? 13:36:33 isabela: should we schedule a few minutes to talk about this stuff before the phone call, after the meeting, or do it during the discussion period here? 13:36:36 PI_: go for it 13:36:51 i did #14840 and have #15358 and that long code review pending, and hopefully apartment-hunting won't explode out from under me again 13:36:54 I have a raspberri Pi 13:37:04 I cannot get tor up on it 13:37:10 #tor 13:37:13 More tbb 13:37:23 ah ha there 13:37:24 PI_: head over to #tor for that; this channel is about making the software. :) 13:37:45 Not the software to load it then? 13:38:00 Ok off to #tor 13:38:09 athena: did you find having stuff to hack on make the code review less overwhelming? 13:38:16 In the US skruffy's patches are public domain 13:38:33 nickm: leave as the last discussion topic 13:38:45 ok 13:38:49 (306 The Human Authorship Requirement) 13:39:22 thanks 13:39:42 nb: INAL 13:39:45 * dgoulet can go 13:39:51 athena: go for it 13:40:10 err, dgoulet 13:40:13 :) 13:40:16 Work on last week SponsorR, fixup #14847, did code also on #15745. I'm 13:40:17 continuing on R for this week that doesn't involve little-t tor code. 13:40:21 nickm: yeah, it flows along smoothera bit now 13:40:43 basically it as for little-t tor is concern 13:40:50 athena: cool. in that case maybe remember to pick a couple more tickets. Ideally high-priority ones for 0.2.7 :) 13:41:33 ok 13:41:58 (oh, my next thing to do for core tor is prolly the curve25519 stuff and the high priority pt stuff) 13:42:22 (unless my patches need further revision. I might rage implment a better guess the IP address routine for the BSDs) 13:42:55 isabela: was my wall of text comprehensible? 13:44:04 Yawning: yes - I havent gone over the evaluations docs yet tho 13:44:19 Yawning: and thank you so much for it! 13:44:28 dgoulet: anything the rest of us can be doing on R? 13:44:34 isabela: np 13:44:44 Jcam wanted an FTE eval so I'll do that when I have a moment 13:44:56 ok 13:45:25 i saw the emails 13:46:50 (I probably have random other patches outstanding and in needs_review that I'm forgetting about, and I know I have a bunch of spec stuff in needs_revision that I need to finish) 13:47:17 nickm: for now we seem all set, SMC is in research mode, we have bunch of tickets to work on, so your help would be simply to review little-t tor patches I guess (which is underway :) 13:47:33 please don't forget to keep bugging me about those 13:47:54 ok I shall :) 13:48:05 I am reaching the limits of my time management skills and I am worried that I might just give my time to whatever is loudest, not to whatever is most important. 13:48:11 dgoulet: torrrrrrr sockssssssss 13:48:16 hehe 13:48:34 Yawning: so good news, I've planned this afternoon for that! I know it's needed and more than needed :) 13:48:40 9\o/ 13:48:46 let me know if you have questions 13:48:55 nickm: yes I understand your time constraint thus trying to offload you as much as I can so for now, everything is well in R world :) 13:49:00 feel free to carve up my patches, I don't care, they're public domain >.> 13:49:31 * isabela has an update :) 13:50:00 nickm: (technically speaking) 13:50:05 isabela: I guess go for it ? :) 13:50:38 I migrated the spreadsheet to Trac so that info is no on our tickets. I still want to organize it more. 13:50:49 yay 13:50:52 o/ 13:51:16 I've been working on a new version of 'how tor uses trac' doc where I want to add custom fields to our tickets for instance one just for us to put sponsor info 13:51:26 so we dont have 20 thousand keywords going on 13:51:35 isabela: fantastic idea 13:52:06 I am writing this to share with you all and also qbi (sysadmin of trac / I found out :D) so ppl are cool with it before implementation 13:52:25 isabela: would that include the results of your survey? 13:52:32 I will change things a little bit but should be for good of all hehe 13:52:33 isabela: (small/medium/large) 13:52:55 isabela: I replied to your survey on IRC using amount of alcohol to characterize how I felt about small/medium/large, was that sufficient? 13:53:06 dgoulet: yes! I will use that info from you to propose a definition of small/medium/large and them reflect that on the tickets / and hopefully others can adopt that as well 13:53:18 Yawning: fantastic! 13:53:25 >.> 13:53:30 I think that's it 13:53:31 13:53:41 awesome 13:53:45 My own sense here is that nobody is in love with our current keyword plan 13:53:48 err, 13:53:51 current keyword usage 13:54:15 cool 13:54:16 Having per-release milestones has worked out better than trying to have per-sponser-month *AND* per-release deliverables used to do 13:54:24 but there might well be an even better way 13:54:36 I don't think you'll get much arguments from us about any sane system :) 13:54:44 hehehe 13:56:11 anybody else with a status thing or should we move on to discussions? 13:56:15 so we should map our sponsors, deliverables and milestones onto zodiac symbols, and the Tree of Life from the Kabbalah, and just tag the symbols right? 13:56:35 This is turning into a console RPG 13:56:46 Yawning: clearly we should add a random component :) 13:56:50 ahahahaha 13:56:54 I want that :) 13:57:04 (tagging our sponsors after Pokemon also acceptable) 13:57:15 yes sir! 13:57:30 anyway, do we have discussion? 13:57:49 There's the report(s) that isabela is up to; that was for last. 13:58:09 oh well, mine was like a gigantic amount of PT stuff 13:58:16 so not really tor core 13:58:24 I wanted to talk RSN about dividing tasks for 0.2.7 and trying to get 0.2.7 done on schedule... and not miss any deliverables 13:58:39 mmk 13:58:40 Anyone else have a discussion topic? 13:58:49 pls review my codez? 13:58:56 ack 13:59:03 I will try to review some codez on the bus today 13:59:15 btw, i am here, but mostly planning to spend my morning catching up on things and preparing for the sponsorO/S phone call later today. 13:59:28 I *think* I got the control port stuff into something mergable 13:59:41 the base64 and unit test changes are also trivial 13:59:54 well, apart from "the base64 change has a new encoder" 14:01:06 yeah... I am trying to go through all the needs_review stuff in 0.2.7 periodically 14:01:10 nickm: before I spend cycles on it, you haven't looked at the curve25519 stuff right? 14:01:16 not for a long time 14:01:19 ok 14:01:20 There was discussion on tor-dev about fallback directories, but I think there is a serious bug in the code 14:01:33 I did write code for some of it long ago but I'm not sure that I believe it is any good 14:01:40 Yawning: might be worth salvaging. 14:01:50 (also, do you think it will be worth looking into specing ntor with goldilocks?) 14:01:55 teor: Is there a ticket for the bug? 14:02:09 (the library is supposedly going to be ready real soon now) 14:02:15 Yawning: I'm not really sure. Not for 0.2.7 I hope. 14:02:22 oh good heavens no 14:02:23 Yes, #15642 has the bug and also a summary of my additional questions 14:02:32 was looking at it for obfs5 related stuff 14:02:47 In short, we still use the fallback directories even in test networks. Which is bad. 14:03:00 since there's elligator code for it 14:03:26 nickm: and also, people want a signed file of fallback directories, which is unsupported by the current code 14:03:43 I am not sure why a signed file makes sense, personally. 14:03:58 But fixing the test network issue seems important 14:03:58 oh, armadevich if you're here, did anything come out of that HS IP related thing? 14:04:11 the one that affects loadbalancing and other cleverness 14:04:12 It seems like a lot of effort for not much gain 14:04:39 I mean, we don't even sign the hard-coded list of authorities 14:06:03 yup. I think the request for making it signed doesn't actually have a solid threat model. 14:06:42 The threat model was: "well-meaning maintainer adds own directory" 14:07:02 "don't do that" 14:07:07 well-meaning maintainer can also remove the signature check 14:07:26 Yes. Or substitute their own authorities, for that matter. 14:08:52 teor: for #15642 , I'm trying to understand the current status. There's a patch but because of lack of test coverage you don't trust it? 14:09:23 Ah, sorry, I confused the two issues. 14:10:03 There is a patch, and I am fine with it. I know that code well from #13163 14:10:32 What I disliked were the complications of importing a signed file. That code doesn't exist and hasn't been tested. 14:10:37 that bug seems familiar 14:10:38 yeah. Let's not do that. 14:10:53 I also included unit tests for the changes I made. 14:11:13 so maybe put that ticket back in needs_Review? 14:11:26 Yes, I will can the speculation. 14:11:29 woot 14:11:34 or move it to a new ticket :) 14:11:41 ok, next topic... dividing up 0.2.7 stuff 14:11:54 we can continue to go for a "do whatever is most important-looking" approach 14:12:00 but that isn't really a plan 14:12:01 "pick stuff that we want, ideally in priority?" 14:12:03 Do you want #15642 in 0.2.7? 14:12:04 isabela: any ideas? 14:12:11 teor: sure I think 14:12:27 I should ask this 14:12:34 before I minor/lorax #15760 14:12:42 do people think it's important? 14:12:54 (there have been 0 1.1.0 releases) 14:13:12 and it's the cipher list code breaking into tons of little peices 14:13:13 nickm: for today I would say to go with that / due to ED transition stuff and EOQ reports I could not make a custom query for us to use at this meeting 14:13:24 isabela: ok 14:13:25 nickm: will work on that for next week hopefully 14:13:30 great 14:13:51 how hard is the fix for #15760 ? How close is this version of openssl to release? 14:14:09 I'd need to look at what's changed, probably not, just timeconsuming and annoying 14:14:14 and not at all 14:14:36 I can poke at it if it's important, or we can leave it till it matters and spend an afternoon on it 14:14:37 My guess is that there's some structure whose contents they no longer export 14:14:40 (small, few beers) 14:14:47 I say minor but not lorax 14:14:50 ok 14:16:06 done 14:16:19 next topic ... Are we up to the EOQ report topic? 14:16:28 shall we do this after the meeting so people not interested can do other stuff? 14:16:34 Yawning: thanks 14:16:48 (does this include my pt stuff, or can I go kitty/videogame?) 14:16:52 which sponsor is this EOQ report? 14:17:22 S 14:17:31 and yes EOQ report 14:17:44 #endmeeting