17:00:52 <nickm> #startmeeting weekly network team meeting
17:00:52 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Jun 19 17:00:52 2017 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:52 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:55 <nickm> Hello everybody!
17:01:00 <ahf> hello!
17:01:04 <mikeperry> hi
17:01:09 <pastly> ayyy
17:01:15 <nickm> let's take a moment to put our updates on the happy-fun pad that teor started for us at http://5jp7xtmox6jyoqd5.onion/p/csrVSo66GUmG
17:01:20 <nickm> (also available at pad.riseup.net)
17:02:31 <Yawning> hm
17:03:10 <nickm> Also, a process hack: If there is something in your update, or somebody else's update, that you would like to discuss: please BOLDFACE the relevant words.
17:04:52 <nickm> Sebastian, isis, armadev, isabela, meeting in progress if you like.
17:05:05 <nickm> komlo: ibid
17:06:31 <nickm> any more updates in progress?  If not, let's start!
17:06:45 <nickm> teor and dgoulet aren't around, so we'll have to hold any questions we have for them.
17:06:52 <Yawning> is there a "batch uncc me and never e-mail me about this again" thing for trac
17:06:54 <pastly> :(
17:07:00 <nickm> let's ask each other questions now?
17:07:21 <Sebastian> hi, I'm here
17:07:27 <nickm> Yawning: you can batch-remove yourself from the cc list of anything you're cc'd on, but I odn't know if that's sufficient to make it never email you.  For everything else, there's procmail
17:07:42 <isis> hi ./
17:07:46 <Yawning> mmk
17:07:55 <haxxpop> hello!
17:07:59 <nickm> hihi
17:08:10 <nickm> Yawning: as somebody who's subscribed to tor-bugs@, I am not the best person to ask
17:08:29 <nickm> ahf: are the log files all in now? How is that going?
17:09:12 <isabela> o/
17:10:10 <ahf> nickm: there is enough for me to analyze them - going to write a small python script that extracts the info from the debug log we added in march/april where we get sizes out of tor. was going to start digging into that after this meeting
17:10:27 <nickm> Also I wanted to bring up, for anybody who wasn't in wilmington, that I replaced my callgraph generator with a better one. See https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/nickm/calltool.git/
17:10:41 <nickm> might not work for others; patches welcome.
17:10:52 <nickm> ahf: great
17:11:10 <ahf> one of my tests ran into the issue of crashing with lzma though, so i have restarted that. going to put the logs up in the https://gitlab.com/ahf/tor-sponsor4-compression repo
17:11:19 <ahf> and make some spreadsheet like we did with compression algorithms
17:11:35 <ahf> maybe i'll have something for you and me to talk about tomorrow?
17:11:40 <nickm> yeah.  let's do what we can with the info we have, and not block while waiting for more tests to complete?
17:11:43 <nickm> sounds great
17:11:48 <ahf> yes, agreed with that
17:12:21 <nickm> dgoulet, asn are the logical people to answer the "How is prop224 going" question ...
17:12:58 <nickm> catalyst: did you want to talk about SessionGroup=, or did I boldface it by mistake?
17:13:09 <catalyst> no, i wanted to talk about it briefly
17:13:15 <nickm> ok, let's go for it!
17:14:19 <catalyst> so there's this bug #22619 about the SessionGroup=N session isolation option being treated as invalid
17:14:45 <catalyst> the validation bug isn't hard to test, but i also discovered that we seem to have no test coverage for the actual session isolation feature it's supposed to control
17:14:54 <catalyst> s/hard to test/hard to fix/
17:15:18 <nickm> I can believe that :(
17:15:39 <catalyst> it's quite an old bug, so maybe people don't try to use this feature very often?
17:15:48 <Yawning> I don't understand the point of that
17:16:03 <nickm> of SessionGroup?
17:16:04 <catalyst> in any case, i'm not sure that coverage testing of the functionality is worth putting in 0.3.1
17:16:06 <Yawning> and till you pointed at the bug, I didn't know that option existed
17:16:07 <Yawning> yes
17:16:26 <nickm> catalyst: agreed; it's ok to delay all of this IMO for 0.3.2 actually, since it's not an 0.3.1 regression
17:16:30 <nickm> though a fix might be nice.
17:16:43 <nickm> as for coverage, I'd say it's worth a day , but not a week?
17:16:44 <Yawning> I assume the people that use it do some placebo bullshit torrc with 3 million untested/buggy options
17:16:56 <nickm> Yawning: they don't, because the option is rejected :(
17:17:15 <Yawning> if the option doesn't even enable right, does it actually even work
17:17:40 <catalyst> well yeah, it's obviously untested
17:17:52 <nickm> the benefit of the option is that it lets you do something like say that _this_ DNSPort and _This_ SOCKSPort are associated, and can share circuits.
17:17:55 <catalyst> unless it used to work and then got broken? but there's still no current automated testing
17:18:33 <nickm> ack
17:19:16 <nickm> so my preference would be "fix it in 0.3.2.x, include tests, unless it will take more than a couple of days." how does that sound?
17:19:22 <nickm> (and is that even what you were asking? :) )
17:19:51 <catalyst> pretty much. though i suspect that testing of the functionality will require chutney
17:20:14 <catalyst> i'll bump the ticket to 0.3.2.x
17:20:31 <nickm> tricky, and interesting.  I think that some of the backend can be tested as unit-tests, like the functions that test whether two streams can share a circuit, etc...
17:20:43 <nickm> but yeah, it's hard to say if it actually works without an integration test
17:20:57 <catalyst> nickm: that's a plausible unit testing approach; i'll look into it
17:21:28 <nickm> pastly: fwiw, dgoulet is not online right now, so you'll need to ask him about KIST status when he's back :/
17:21:49 <pastly> ack
17:22:11 <nickm> all my discussion topics are on the topics list at the top, as are the remainging topics i can see.  So, anybody have any questions based on anyone else's updates?
17:22:52 <nickm> wrt 0.3.1 -- we have about 38 open tickets.  dgoulet, catalyst, asn, and teor have a small number of tickets.
17:22:56 <nickm> ahf and I have a huge number of tickets open
17:23:07 <nickm> there are also 10 "new" tickets for 0.3.1 that are neither assigned nor deferred.
17:23:22 <nickm> so, I'm hoping to go through the stuff that's assigned to me...
17:23:34 <catalyst> how many of these are in an actionable state?
17:23:36 <nickm> but as for the stuff in "new" I hope more people pick things up.
17:23:48 <nickm> most, I think?
17:24:31 <nickm> depends on what 'actionable' means :)
17:25:05 <nickm> Would anybody like to take on the job of trying to get somebody attached to each of those tickets? If not I can do it...
17:25:06 <catalyst> needs_information leans towards "not-actionable"
17:25:10 <nickm> right
17:25:28 <nickm> I'm talking about the 10 tickets marked "new" in the milestone "Tor: 0.3.1.x-final"
17:26:14 <nickm> ok, I guess that's me. :/
17:26:51 <nickm> one more thing I'll ask for help on: we all share code-review responsibility
17:26:57 <catalyst> i would kind of like to leave the "easy" tickets open for new contributors but i'll jump on them if need be
17:27:28 <nickm> sometimes, to ensure a loose FIFO, we use a keyword to mark all the reviewable tickets, and try to get those all reviewed before moving on to review new ones.
17:27:34 <nickm> the current keyword is "review-group-18".
17:27:52 <catalyst> thanks. do we document this practice somewhere?
17:27:54 <isis> hi, my internet suddenly crapped out for some reason
17:27:54 <nickm> I am not going to commit to reviewing any new code until every "review-group-18" ticket has gotten a review. :)
17:28:04 * isis reads backlog
17:28:09 <ahf> sounds very fair
17:28:09 <nickm> catalyst: I don't know! maybe on the wiki; does anybody know?
17:29:07 <nickm> review-group-18 now contains 26 needs_review tickets.  Let's all allocate time to get s5tarted on it!  In passing, I note that I can't review my own patches. :)
17:29:18 <catalyst> there's https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/process/TorOnTrac but wasn't there also a pad that people were writing notes about for revising that wiki page?
17:29:47 <armadev> i live (trying to keep up with all the backlogs)
17:29:48 <nickm> catalyst: I think so. anybody have that pad?
17:30:18 <nickm> I think maybe dgoulet (who is not here right now) was maintaining it.
17:31:18 <asn> hello all. i'm jetlagged but back in europe.
17:31:21 <asn> noted on the needs_review tickets
17:31:46 <catalyst> nickm: found it: http://5jp7xtmox6jyoqd5.onion/p/trac-hygiene
17:31:53 <nickm> woo
17:31:55 <nickm> ty
17:32:09 <catalyst> who wants to start updating the wiki page with that?
17:33:11 <nickm> I've made a note on the pad with both urls, I hope somebody can pick it up.
17:33:16 <nickm> if not I'll try to remember.
17:33:48 <nickm> also, if anybody doesn't have an oniongit.eu account who is participating in tor development, please get one? We're going to start testing it out for our code reviews
17:33:58 <nickm> to get one, I believe the procedure is "ask hiro"
17:34:10 <ahf> yep
17:34:13 <nickm> anything else for this weeK?
17:35:13 <nickm> ok.  I'll be around a few hours more if I can be helpful with anything.  Thanks, everybody!
17:35:16 <nickm> #endmeeting