13:30:34 <nickm> #startmeeting
13:30:34 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed May 13 13:30:34 2015 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:30:34 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
13:30:37 <nickm> hi everybody!
13:30:42 <nickm> It's another beautiful wednesday.
13:30:53 <dgoulet> hi meeting!
13:30:58 <nickm> we've got at least two discussion topics pending, but let's start with quick status reports.
13:31:08 <nickm> Please start chatting while I pour myself a coffee?
13:31:24 <Yawning> uhm, did a bunch of stuff that's in 0.2.7.1
13:31:43 <Yawning> plans are, "do more stuff, some of it pt, some of it tech writing, and look at prop 188"
13:31:51 <Yawning> (yay, new release)
13:32:16 <Yawning> also probably look into some of the low hanging fruit stuff on the 0.2.7.x list
13:33:48 <dgoulet> ok I can go maybe?
13:34:05 <nickm> go for it
13:34:34 <Yawning> sure
13:34:48 <Yawning> (I also distracted dgoulet with torsocks stuff muhahahahaha)
13:35:00 <dgoulet> here are the tickets I did patch for: #4862, #8243, #15881
13:35:45 <Yawning> *looks at the missing desc thing*
13:35:58 <dgoulet> I'm waiting for a reply on #14917, this has been mostly my little-t tor work apart from torsocks and hs health
13:36:00 <nickm> Yawning: it's a bit tricksy
13:36:05 <dgoulet> it is...
13:36:34 <dgoulet> latest patch fixes the HSDir issue but I'm open to other ways (if any) to do it
13:37:01 <dgoulet> but the thing is without that patch, hs health tool is unable to work properly :S
13:37:05 * dgoulet done
13:37:20 <nickm> and for 14917, I don't see the question. I think we could do "warn loudly at startup for a while; later, don't start."
13:37:25 <nickm> does that seem plausible?
13:38:10 <nickm> I'll go now I guess
13:38:11 <Yawning> dgoulet: that doesn't add it to uploaded event right?
13:38:18 <dgoulet> Yawning: not yet
13:38:18 <Yawning> (oh, ok, questions can wait)
13:38:28 <dgoulet> (yeah discussion phase soon :)
13:38:57 <nickm> I got 0.2.7.1-alpha released, and added another libevent maintainer since libevent has been stalling hard.  I also spent a lot of time in the weeds looking at Tor financial stuff and being in meetings.
13:39:30 <nickm> I merged the outline for the "how to write tests" doc I wanted to do for SponsorU, but it needs more work
13:39:43 <nickm> I started drafting ideas for how to kick old releases off the net
13:40:16 <nickm> at https://pad.riseup.net/p/deprecating-old-tors
13:40:33 <isabela_> nice
13:40:42 <nickm> coming up I am going to try to spend the next day or two hacking and writing as much as I can.
13:40:49 <nickm> though I should review and merge patches too I guess :)
13:40:58 <nickm> I hope I can churn out a few more proposals
13:41:01 <dgoulet> nickm: keep in mind that this pad will be deleted after 30 days of inactivity :)
13:41:10 * nickm saves
13:41:23 <isabela_> :)
13:41:35 <Yawning> riesup's pad takes a while to load for me
13:42:36 <nickm> who's next?
13:43:58 <nickm> ok. if anyone else steps in we can chat more then, but let's move on to discussion.
13:44:11 <nickm> isabela_ has a cool thing for us to look at.  isabela_ , do you want to present that or should I?
13:44:30 <isabela_> sure
13:44:37 * dgoulet smells trac overhaul!
13:44:40 <isabela_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1luDGhBRw2eJxJ4JKlPlF2CCIqMRCFP35NRuM2scBSh8/edit#
13:44:43 <isabela_> lol
13:45:06 <isabela_> so this is where I am documenting what I want to change
13:45:13 <nickm> dgoulet: smells like ... victory.
13:45:19 <dgoulet> WOOT!
13:45:25 <isabela_> hehehe
13:45:30 <Yawning> hm earthquake
13:45:32 <Yawning> sec
13:45:37 <isabela_> oh man :(
13:45:42 <Yawning> ok
13:45:43 <Yawning> just minor
13:45:48 <nickm> !
13:45:51 <isabela_> good
13:45:52 <Yawning> hey 2nd one today
13:46:03 <Yawning> the one in the morning was 6.something
13:46:09 <Yawning> (at source)
13:46:22 <nickm> so, readikng through it, I like the basic idea and would like to suggest some refinements
13:46:30 <nickm> I think the TBB team is currently using points, for instance
13:46:55 <dgoulet> also we can actually add fields if we need to
13:47:02 <isabela_> yes
13:47:23 <nickm> I think we can do lots of discussion and comment on the document, and let isabela_ figure out what to fold in?
13:47:26 <isabela_> I wonder how is the best way to circulate this around before is implemented to trac, maybe send to tor-dev?
13:47:44 <nickm> let's do one round of in-team discussion, then send to tor-dev
13:47:46 <isabela_> btw the workflow is not something that needs to be part of the first implementation
13:47:51 <nickm> agreed
13:48:04 <isabela_> nickm: sounds good
13:48:05 <nickm> our current workflow is not the trac default workflow, btw
13:48:09 <nickm> we have needs_review and needs_revision
13:48:25 <isabela_> as keywords?
13:48:30 <nickm> no, as states
13:48:30 <isabela_> or states
13:48:35 <isabela_> oh nice
13:48:51 <Yawning> (is this where I say wtb gerrit)
13:48:55 <nickm> the idea is that needs_review can been reviewed and merged.  if the review says that revisions are needed, it goes into needs_revision until it's ready.
13:48:57 <Yawning> (or does that come later?)
13:49:35 <nickm> Yawning: I am in favor of gerrit or any such tool so long as somebody admins it.  The sysadmins will probably not mind providing the OS-level hosting so long as someone else is responsible for the app.
13:49:56 <Yawning> yeah just not sure we have the mystical someone
13:50:05 <Yawning> I'd offer to do it but I'm a horribad sysadmin
13:50:10 * nickm too
13:50:27 <isabela_> would more teams like gerrit?
13:50:32 <isabela_> twitter uses it
13:50:44 <dgoulet> I was a sysadmin in an other life some years ago :P not sure I want to go back though eheh
13:50:53 <isabela_> hehehe
13:51:16 <isabela_> gerrit would be cool, never installed/admin it just used it
13:51:31 <Yawning> (if this was an offtopic question, sorry)
13:51:42 <Yawning> (not trying to distract, but since we were talking about workflow stuff....)
13:51:56 <isabela_> Yawning: no is good
13:52:21 <isabela_> nickm: milestone will be 'january' instead of a project or a release
13:52:42 <Yawning> should january be qualified with a year?
13:52:53 <Yawning> like Jan2016 or w/e
13:52:58 <nickm> I'm adding lots of comments on the document.  Is that a good way to do discussion?
13:53:36 <isabela_> nickm: yes it is
13:53:41 <isabela_> Yawning: agree
13:53:53 <isabela_> please add comments and I will improve it base on them
13:54:18 <nickm> also btw: when I say something like "We do it this way because..."
13:54:25 <nickm> or "we used to do it like that but it failed because..."
13:54:34 <nickm> I'm not saying that we can't change; only explaining the current rationale.
13:54:45 <isabela_> yes, history is good
13:57:49 <isabela_> i guess i missed on arrow on my workflow
13:58:15 <isabela_> from reviewable back to open.. witch is the revision state you have
13:59:01 <isabela_> I think the currect flow you have should be ok to keep / i will look into it more (how the current one is set up)
13:59:56 <isabela_> I am excited about this plugin because we can track dependencies
13:59:58 <isabela_> http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/ProjectPlanPlugin
14:00:28 <nickm> ok, I think I commmented on everything I saw.  groovy
14:01:47 <dgoulet> hrm something I have in mind with the current situation
14:02:05 <dgoulet> when we backport a fix nickm flags it but doesn't close it yet even though it's merged upstream
14:02:10 <dgoulet> I wonder how that would work in this new workflow
14:02:25 <dgoulet> "merged" state ? but not "closed"?
14:02:56 <isabela_> oh sorry, this is bad habit
14:03:19 <isabela_> i  would close after demos
14:03:28 <isabela_> but we can change tht
14:03:30 <isabela_> that
14:03:37 <dgoulet> " i  would close after demos" ?
14:04:08 <nickm> I am fine with a new workflow for backports, but we _do_ need a workflow for backports. :)
14:04:18 <isabela_> at twitter the team would merge and at the end of sprint meeting we will have demos for me to see if all good then the tickt would be closed
14:04:18 <dgoulet> ^
14:04:42 <isabela_> no need to do the same
14:04:51 <nickm> maybe merged == "somebody else confirms that it now works in master" ?
14:05:04 <dgoulet> I feel that this ^ will be chaotic :S
14:05:18 <dgoulet> means we have to ack twice the ticket? :)
14:05:21 <isabela_> nickm: yeah, is a small room for qa before going to the wild
14:05:46 <nickm> I'm not sure we have a "merged" / "in-the-wild" distinction. :)
14:05:55 <isabela_> cool ;)
14:06:01 <nickm> we have "merged" / "released", but people start testing our code as soon as it's merged.
14:07:24 <isabela_> yeah, i need to get the current flow correct before anything else
14:08:13 <nickm> I think the basic idea looks good to me though
14:08:14 <isabela_> so, I will work on your feedback and send it back to you before tor-dev
14:08:25 <nickm> do we have a sense of who can make these changes?
14:09:06 <isabela_> I think qbi might be able to help. I am applying then localy on a server I have here at home to test if it will work how I want it to
14:09:25 <Yawning> o.O
14:09:34 <Yawning> having a home trac server is p hardcore
14:09:48 <isabela_> heheh i dont use it for real
14:09:53 <nickm> always mount a scratch monkey :)
14:09:54 <isabela_> is just to play and test set ups
14:10:06 <dgoulet> "Ticket 7161: Buy coffee"
14:10:09 <dgoulet> epic
14:10:10 <isabela_> lol
14:11:11 <dgoulet> right in the workflow, I would propose a way to have a "revision" state or something that can go back and forth with reviewable
14:11:38 <dgoulet> we often have lots of round trip between an initial patch and mergeable one
14:11:50 <dgoulet> (Yea code review!)
14:11:54 <isabela_> hehehe
14:12:07 <isabela_> yes, i missed an arrow there coming back
14:12:19 <nickm> we use needs_revision for that
14:12:37 <dgoulet> yeah basically needs_review/needs_revision indeed
14:12:46 <isabela_> cool
14:12:57 <dgoulet> pretty neat stuff
14:13:32 <isabela_> cool - will update with feedback.. probably ask TBB folks to look at it before sending to dev
14:13:46 <isabela_> might start applying this with you first then move to other teams
14:13:53 <isabela_> sorry you my little rat lab :)
14:14:01 <nickm> no worries
14:14:05 <dgoulet> isabela_: hrm quick question
14:14:09 <nickm> just make sure the cheese is the expensive kind :)
14:14:28 <isabela_> dgoulet: ssup
14:14:38 <Yawning> is this oneof those experiments where I get cocaine if I press a button?
14:14:39 <dgoulet> isabela_: tor-hs, -relay, -client will be removed, is there a way to categorize ticket then?
14:14:41 <Yawning> :P
14:14:54 <Yawning> yeah I thing the varions tor-<subsystem> tags useful
14:15:03 <dgoulet> I use tor-hs
14:15:20 <isabela_> so I am adding projects
14:15:30 <dgoulet> ah that would be "project" field?
14:15:35 <isabela_> project core tor - components of this project can be 'relay'
14:15:54 <Yawning> ah ok
14:15:57 <dgoulet> a1
14:16:24 <isabela_> project hs can have a dependency on project core tor ticket (can be a way to do tor-hs things but it can also be a component)
14:16:53 <dgoulet> and what happened when the HS goes beyond core tor ?
14:17:00 <dgoulet> the hs ticket*
14:17:11 <Yawning> a bunch of stuff we do touches lots of subsystems
14:17:13 <isabela_> hs will be a project
14:17:29 <isabela_> tickets will have dependencies
14:17:38 <dgoulet> ok I see
14:17:41 <Yawning> ah
14:17:41 <isabela_> that is the plugin i was talking about and that is how projects work are connected
14:18:15 <isabela_> so you can open a dependeny against core tor or against bridges
14:18:33 <dgoulet> sounds good
14:20:48 <dgoulet> other topics? :D
14:21:09 <Yawning> wtb descriptor ID in UPLOADED HS_DESC events
14:21:12 <Yawning> ;_;
14:21:27 <nickm> dgoulet: maybe let's do a quick round of review-and-merge after the meeting?
14:21:38 <nickm> I was pretty distracted yesterday
14:21:46 <dgoulet> nickm: sure
14:21:49 <Yawning> I can review stuff, but I need to dinner
14:21:56 <Yawning> at some point
14:21:59 <nickm> ok
14:22:08 <Yawning> and kitty is giving me death glares
14:22:12 <nickm> i'll be around for hours and hours
14:22:17 <nickm> shall I endmeeting?
14:22:32 <isabela_> cool
14:22:33 <dgoulet> hmm
14:22:36 <dgoulet> nickm: wait
14:22:47 <nickm> ok
14:22:47 <dgoulet> ah well yeah sure
14:22:50 <dgoulet> sorry
14:22:51 <nickm> #endmeeting