14:29:34 #startmeeting metrics team 14:29:34 Meeting started Thu Jun 22 14:29:34 2017 UTC. The chair is karsten. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:29:34 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:29:42 agenda https://pad.riseup.net/p/3M7VyrTVgjlF 14:30:20 we only have 30 minutes, right? if so, let's start. 14:30:27 yep. 14:30:31 - metrics-lib 1.9.x (yes or no?) (iwakeh) 14:30:37 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/22695 14:30:49 yes, I have a response. 14:30:55 well, not a good one, but a start maybe. 14:31:13 couldn't post it 20 minutes ago when trac was sad. 14:31:23 It seems we can just add this to 2.0.0? 14:31:39 ah, I also had trouble with trac. 14:31:44 there, posted. 14:31:55 yes, let's think about this in the 2.0.0 release timeframe. 14:32:13 ah, you mean put out a 1.9.1 for this? 14:32:30 no, not with the short time to 2.0.0. 14:32:36 ok. 14:32:40 just wanted to make this clear. 14:32:51 trac loads still, 14:33:06 then discuss 22695 on the ticket. 14:33:11 okay. 14:33:40 so, if this is for 2.0.0, 14:33:44 should we jump to that topic? 14:33:57 yes but 14:34:08 I cannot access trac at the moment. 14:34:49 ah, hmm, not just for this ticket? 14:35:07 (I posted my comment for #22695 on the pad) 14:35:16 noticed, thanks 14:35:24 should we talk about the blog post first then? 14:35:32 yes, I'll respond after thinking a while :-) 14:35:43 yeah, I didn't fully think through it, either. 14:35:51 release timing would be fine, too. 14:36:01 wednesday would be good. 14:36:17 I'll be offline most of friday (tomorrow) and some of sunday and monday. 14:36:21 I think, with that set 14:36:27 but I could work on some things on saturday. 14:36:40 and this evening. 14:36:44 this topic is done. 14:36:46 and the rest of monday. 14:37:01 fine, I can also make time on sat. 14:37:07 and mon. 14:37:22 so, we can finetune the 14:37:27 I'd say let's aim for wednesday, but let's be sure it's ready, and if not, move to thursday or friday at the latest. 14:37:33 release when further topics come up. 14:37:50 agreed. 14:38:05 so, should we talk about the blog post? 14:38:24 yes, the draft looks good. 14:38:32 do we have a logo? 14:38:33 (I think we could have a better intro. What problem does this solve? Why was it created? Is there a way we can make this more of a story?) 14:38:36 comment by steph. 14:38:51 ah, didn't notice 14:38:55 yes, it's new. 14:39:11 nothing came to my mind immediately. 14:39:18 would you want to give that some thoughts? 14:39:31 sure. 14:39:41 cool! 14:39:53 But, the close look from 14:40:20 implementation and the like might make that hard. I'll try while waiting for the test runs to finish ;-) 14:40:30 hehe 14:41:00 regarding the image, 14:41:06 I don't know whether we have one. 14:41:22 (I try to avoid calling it a logo, because my understanding was that we're creating one just for this post.) 14:41:42 * iwakeh just curious if any logo came up yet. 14:41:54 okay. I didn't hear anything. 14:42:21 so, I think the only action item right now is the better intro. 14:42:35 would you want to ping stephanie and tommy after updating the pad with something there? 14:42:42 good. It will be posted on Friday? 14:42:49 it seems we're on track with the post. 14:43:13 yes, I'll ping them. 14:43:15 sure, why not. 14:43:24 we could release on wednesday and post on friday. 14:43:31 just in case we need a patch release... ;) 14:43:46 ugh 14:43:57 I insist on more tests 14:44:02 hehe 14:44:14 is trac back? 14:44:24 #22696 14:44:26 looks like it. 14:44:34 yes 14:44:49 okay, let's quickly go through some tickets. 14:44:55 fine 14:45:09 I attached quite a few patches and set tickets to needs_review. 14:45:15 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=needs_information&status=needs_revision&status=merge_ready&status=reopened&status=needs_review&status=assigned&status=new&status=accepted&group=status&milestone=metrics-lib+2.0.0 14:45:46 ah, including tickets for other components where we upgrade to 1.9.0. 14:45:53 I'll review these next. 14:45:58 which means more testing for 1.9.0 and hence 2.0.0. 14:46:05 true 14:46:13 shall I take #22154 14:46:15 no rush, just saying that there's a lot on your review plate. sorry. :) 14:46:22 or did you work on that already? 14:46:25 yeah, I didn't touch that yet. 14:46:29 wanted to talk to you first. 14:47:00 I don't mind taking it or leaving it to you. what we should do, though, is make sure we don't have too many open branches while working on it. 14:47:18 true, that's why I would review first. 14:47:21 same with #19616. 14:47:35 (the package renaming will otherwise make merging no fun at all.) 14:47:44 yes, maybe do the renaming last? 14:47:52 makes sense! 14:48:12 maybe you can comment on the package name choice though. 14:48:25 oh, I will :-) 14:48:25 so that we're absolutely sure what we'll do when all other tickets are closed. 14:48:45 okay, how do we do this with open reviews and then #22154? 14:48:51 not to happy about o.t.m.lib 14:48:59 noticed that. :) 14:49:30 * iwakeh doesn't get the question? 14:49:37 ah, sorry. 14:49:40 timing. 14:49:50 reviews first, 22154, renaming 14:50:03 and the other tickets in 200 14:50:17 reviews, merge, then 22154, then rename? 14:50:37 renaming just before pre-releasing 14:50:41 hmm, how's the rest of your today? 14:50:49 right. (re: renaming) 14:50:58 uhh, rather tomorrow. 14:51:12 okay, then I can merge saturday morning. 14:51:16 later in the evening. 14:51:26 maybe. 14:51:31 and you can start working on #22154 on saturday/sunday/monday. 14:51:44 22695 has high prio too 14:51:53 higher even. 14:52:04 but it needs discussion. 14:52:13 I can look more into that this evening. 14:52:31 fine, I'll try to comment after this meeting. 14:53:24 or here: I think the filename might be useful still even if there is byte[] supplied. 14:53:44 what for? 14:54:07 Well, if I have the source file and also have the byte[] for other reasons 14:54:23 and b/c the current design yields such approaches, but maybe 14:54:33 this needs more thinking ... 14:54:35 I hope we don't need the file name in the near future. 14:54:49 yes. I'm also not entirely certain how to fix that issue. 14:54:52 not yet. 14:55:03 another ticket we need to talk about is #22208. 14:55:14 which potentially touches quite a bit of code, too. 14:55:34 oh, I wasn't aware of that. 14:55:46 that it will change a lot. 14:56:01 we'll have to touch each method that parses a line. 14:56:27 It doesn't change the API? 14:56:36 somewhat. 14:56:44 getUnrecognizedLines() will contain more lines. 14:56:57 we could future-proof it by updating the documentation. 14:57:05 and change the implementation later. 14:57:10 but, eww. 14:57:12 medium release + documentation change now. 14:57:26 ^^^ later 14:57:35 medium release? 14:57:42 2.1.0 14:58:04 we could prepare the branch and see 14:58:05 medium release later + documentation change now? 14:58:18 is that what you mean? 14:58:19 how much it interferes with other tickets. 14:58:27 yes 14:58:29 a lot. it touches the whole code base. 14:58:31 plausible. 14:58:47 then it should be done after renaming. 14:59:05 okay. 14:59:30 sounds like we have a plan. 14:59:36 and ran out of the 30 minutes. 14:59:43 yes :-) 14:59:47 is there anything else left that we should talk about now? 14:59:56 but I have five more if necessary 15:00:13 I think we can discuss non-metrics-lib releases next week. 15:00:19 true. 15:00:20 and discuss the rest via email and trac. 15:00:36 all set then. 15:00:39 okay, cool! 15:00:42 thanks! 15:00:48 and bye, bye. :) 15:00:51 thanks, and bye bye 15:00:52 #endmeeting