17:00:09 #startmeeting network team meeting, 9 September 2019 17:00:09 Meeting started Mon Sep 9 17:00:09 2019 UTC. The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:09 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:17 Hello, network-team. It's that time again! 17:00:23 o/ 17:00:40 hi! 17:01:05 hello hello 17:01:11 o/ 17:01:53 o/ 17:02:28 are we expecting asn and mikeperry ? 17:02:40 mike wrote on the signal group that we should not expect him. 17:02:47 did meeting notes get sent last week? 17:02:58 I think so; let me check 17:03:34 oh yikes, it looks like not. :( 17:04:01 swati is also around for this meeting. Her project is starting 17:04:23 gaba: expand on this project? 17:04:34 hello swati o/ 17:04:43 https://pad.riseup.net/redirect#https%3A//developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/participants/project-tor 17:04:58 a for SoD! 17:04:59 awesome 17:05:03 ah, cool! 17:05:04 working on rewriting the Tor manual page 17:05:15 very cool 17:05:20 catalyst and me are commited to mentor her through the process 17:05:47 catalyst: I will send them out after today's meeting so that I don't interrupt, if that's okay w everybody 17:06:15 Hello everyone! 17:06:20 swati: welcome! 17:06:21 hi swati ! 17:06:40 hi swati! 17:06:42 I am just starting out with my work on the Tor Manual and I have some questions that I am sending to Gaba and Taylor over email. 17:06:56 swati: welcome! 17:07:14 Mostly questions about the process, review, etc. 17:07:22 cool! 17:07:29 Thanks so much Taylor and dgoulet! 17:08:12 Our first ourders of business are 041 and 042. 17:08:25 I think that we can now remove the 041Status page from our weekly workflow, if folks agree? 17:08:34 yes 17:08:43 yes 17:08:43 And I think that the 042Status page is not yet useful, though it does show the amount of stuff that we have to remove. 17:09:15 +1 17:09:30 nickm: I would love to check with you later to see how we can reproduce or have a similar process for gitlab on release status. I think milestone may work but let's talk later about it. 17:10:12 ok. teor may also have good insight here; they're the one who made the initial page 17:10:17 ok 17:11:09 next item is the kanban ? 17:11:42 very nice with the move to dip here btw! 17:11:49 I'll move my items around a bit; others should do so too 17:12:40 gaba: speaking of, I see some duplication in tickets and I'm guessing this is to basically have a proper kanban. I've been opening much s27 tickets lately, what should I do there? 17:13:11 im gonna move mine around when i get back to my password manager. im on my temp laptop right now which doesnt have the dip password in it 17:13:22 duplication of tickets in dip? 17:13:35 https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/issues/11 17:13:36 == 17:13:39 for instance 17:14:03 that one is closed 17:14:12 I just moved that one to closed 17:14:20 there may have been a mistake or two when opening tickets. I closed them if that was the case 17:14:23 oh, let me check 17:15:08 well regardless of close or not, I'm just wondering here trac ticket vs dip ticket what should I do :) 17:15:08 #30924 is only once in kanban dgoulet 17:15:25 ahh, until we migrate, trac is the source of all truth 17:15:48 roger so I do not do anything on dip? 17:15:49 we are using dip right now to mantain roadmap and test how it will work once we leave trac 17:16:33 Keep still trac tickets updated. We can update the kanban board in the meeting, mostly with the status of the tickets for now 17:16:40 (if I understand you correctly) 17:16:50 sorta, but it is clear. Thanks! 17:18:20 on to revies? 17:18:23 *reviews 17:20:22 doesn't look too overwhelming this wek; I think we're doing ok. 17:20:43 Please remember that we're freezing 042 this week, so if there are any features we really want to get in, they should get a prompt review 17:20:58 (for "this week" == 15 Sep) 17:21:03 roger 17:21:05 and for "freezing" == "no new features" 17:21:10 prop305 ticket was merged, that was our s27 _big_ piece :D 17:21:13 \o/ 17:21:33 * arma2 changes his name 17:21:36 dgoulet: I still owe you a merge on #26294, but first I want arma2 to express an opinion 17:21:37 #29294 is the other part but smaller footprint 17:21:40 :) 17:22:17 I'm going in test mode "in the wild" this afternoon about the above ^, adding this to the hs health tool 17:22:23 anybody need to move reviews around? 17:22:36 dgoulet: t needs testing on some bigger relays? 17:22:43 i need to update my relays this week, so could try that branch 17:22:54 ahf: nea, your relays have been used quite a bit for prop305 dev ;) 17:23:10 ahf: more on the "functionnality" side and if client/intro behave like expected 17:23:20 ah, cool! i will just go with master then 17:23:26 ahf: (which has been tested before merge ofc but I always like to do "customer-client followup" ;) 17:23:36 nickm: which parts of the confog refactor do we need to get in 0.4.2? 17:23:39 ahf: yeah go master! 17:23:49 ahf: I will certainly use akka and ukko for this for sure 17:24:02 coolio 17:24:19 teor4: I think nothing but cleanup at this point. 17:25:10 so no new reafctors from config.c merged into 0.4.2? Seems ok. 17:25:36 teor4: I'd like to resolve the outstanding issues that we opened from the last round of reviews, but only if you're confident in them 17:25:57 I also think it's okay to add more tests when we are in freeze mode 17:26:45 yeah I think it's good to draw a line somewhere, and now seems like a good place to just fix issies 17:26:57 +1 17:27:20 this moves us to the announcements, I think: 17:27:27 #1: hi, swati ! welcome again! 17:27:38 Thanks Nick! 17:27:45 Please feel free to ask any of us when you have questions, if your regular helpers are not around 17:27:55 Sure, I would. 17:28:10 # 2: dip. we looked at it before; let's keep trying it. 17:28:37 # 3: Next S31 meeting is tomorrow. We needed more time than we had for the first one, so we're going to keep going. 17:29:08 (nickm, catalyst, teor: please remember to go to the agenda pad and try to write in draft answers for the questions there before the meeting, if you have not already done so) 17:29:21 # 4: freeze, mentioned above. 17:29:45 Nobody's planning any big feature merges in 042 I don't know about, right? If so, please tell me asap. :) 17:30:10 # 5: bugsmash fund. Use the BugSmashFund keyword for bugs you fix that are not covered by a sponsor. 17:30:25 oh 17:30:47 gaba: (starting when?) 17:30:59 now :) 17:31:04 last week actually 17:31:21 okay. so doing it retroactively for last week's work is okay... 17:31:27 but not for work from august? 17:31:38 yes 17:32:09 great 17:32:14 cool 17:33:12 last announcement is about a trac->gitlab migration. We really need to comment on that thing soon, ideally this week. Thanks to gaba & teor for getting us started there 17:34:01 as I said in my email, it's a really big document, so it's hard to comment on 17:34:16 but the details are also important 17:34:22 not sure what other options are teor4 17:34:29 not sure how we 17:34:29 they have the feature comparison at the beginning 17:34:32 maybe read that part? 17:35:08 gaba: let's try to fond a better way of communicating the change, please 17:35:09 I have to say, impressive doc indeed 17:35:34 teor4: i'm open for suggestions on other ways to do it 17:36:00 because asking ~30 people to read and understand a 20 page document is going to lead to disappointment, misunderstandings, or overload 17:36:06 communicating the change? the change = the transition to GL? 17:36:31 i think the document reads pretty quickly. i saw it first time last week and i think it is verbose but not overly verbose 17:36:46 gaba: work out the things that will surprise or disappoint people, and summarise them? 17:37:01 teor4: that is what the document is trying to do 17:37:02 yeah. maybe somebody can summarize the substantive process changes from our team's perspective? 17:37:04 * summarise them in an email to the list 17:37:22 nickm: I think a per-team summary would be really useful 17:37:39 I think each team needs one person to try to figure out what actually changes for them. 17:37:47 gaba: a 20 page document is not a summary :-) 17:38:02 it is the best i was able to do to summarize this :) 17:38:14 i think trying to summarize this in a shorter form is going to surprise people more than it would if they read this thing 17:38:41 ahf: do we know how many people have actually read the document? 17:38:42 a part of the effort with the dip transition is also to make it easier for us to work together with other teams, so having a feel of what they are up to is a good thing, even if it requires reading 20 pages 17:38:58 i dont know if we know that 17:39:03 sure, and if people have the time and ability that's great 17:39:19 but if they don't, let's make it easier for them 17:39:45 i think people should prioritze reading this document then this week because it is such an important part of our whole workflow if they are into how our workflows are and are maybe going to be in the near future 17:40:02 sorry for all the typos, i am so unused to writing on an island keyboard and danish keyboard layout 17:40:21 if our purpose is to get feedback from everyone, then let's make it easy for people to give feedback 17:40:28 i think the important thing you can read is the 'Feature comparison'. The other part is about structure, permissions, workflows 17:40:53 yeah, i would say the feature comparison is the most important area to read too 17:40:57 also, making a per-team summary helps gaba and pili know if people have actually understood the document 17:41:18 teor4: do you want to volunteeer to read it and make a summary for the network team? 17:41:23 summaries *are* a form of feedback 17:42:33 gaba: I can try to write a summary if nobody else has time, but I would want you to read the summary and commit to it or correct it :) 17:42:38 gaba: I feel weird that I said I don't have time, and now I get that task 17:42:41 ok 17:43:49 nickm: i would be OK with doing it 17:44:01 even though i am not very good at reducing information :) 17:44:05 is it a thing where we want a summary in a bullet list type of format that says: "1. We will loose this feature but will transition to this feature in Gitlab" ... etc.. ? 17:44:26 I'm not sure what the best format is 17:44:31 because hhonestly, this document can be summarized in a 1000 different ways.... 17:44:51 so asking gaba for a summary ... might lead this process to endless bikeshedding of "waiting for something we don't know what we are looking for" 17:45:36 hm, maybe i'm messing something up here. is the 20 page document we are talking about now something different than the 13 page document with the title "Evaluation of Gitlab vs. Trac" ? 17:45:49 personally, I'm primarly intesterd in knowing what will be our workflow in Gitlab... and that can be usually summarize easily with a drawing/diagram 17:46:01 It is the same document and it has an overview at the beginning and a table of contents at the beginning. 17:46:08 ahf: We're talking about the thing on nextcloud 17:46:18 okay, great, that is the one i am looking at too 17:46:56 dgoulet: there is a section on workflows but it may not be good enough or it may be missing something 17:47:43 ahf: want to collaborate? I can pass something to you and gaba today, and you can revise it then we send it out? 17:48:09 yes 17:48:10 thanks nickm 17:48:13 i would love to be in on this 17:48:19 great 17:48:31 gaba: I'm having a hard time understanding the feature comparison. There are things in the "comments" column that implies that there are key decisions here that are not made 17:48:39 anyway we should discuss other thing too 17:48:44 *things 17:48:48 yes, this are all proposals. 17:49:14 the comments has stuff about concerns that I may have with each feature 17:49:18 first discussion thing is left over from last week... 17:50:28 can we remove it? 17:50:50 sure. But first let's just summarize: 17:51:12 once 042 freezes we should focus on 042 stability stuff. How well we do on that determines when we can be comfortable opening 043 for patches 17:51:46 this week's discussion item is whether we should do anything about older needs_review tickets 17:52:16 I think we should look over them individually -- some may be stalled but some are probably in a weird state that isn't quite needs_review or needs_revision or merge_ready 17:52:32 Going over the list this week would be neat 17:54:27 would it make sense to do at patch party time? 17:54:34 could be, if folks are around! 17:54:43 i was planning on being around tomorrow evening 17:54:54 I don't know if I can male the patch party this week 17:54:56 cool, but patch party time is wednesday 17:55:16 ahf: tomorrow evening is s31 meeting, where of course you're welcome 17:55:28 ah, i can do wednesday evening too 17:55:53 ahf: let's talk about this when you and I are meeting with gaba to talk about role transitions tomorrow? 17:56:00 we can figure out some first steps then 17:56:14 (unless there are other proposals here?) 17:56:32 yeah, i thinj that is a good idea 17:57:27 also, maybe ahf will be running next week's meeting. That would be cool if so :) 17:57:32 any more for our last minutes? 17:57:57 i was thinking would be one of the low hanging fruits for me to takeover :) 17:59:33 :) 17:59:39 okay, hearing no new topics... 17:59:43 thanks, all! 17:59:45 #endmeeting