22:59:29 #startmeeting network team meeting, 2 october 2019 22:59:29 Meeting started Wed Oct 2 22:59:29 2019 UTC. The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 22:59:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 22:59:33 hello o/ 22:59:43 we have a pad at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep 23:00:02 o/ 23:00:09 o/ 23:00:16 who is here today? 23:00:25 hi there! 23:00:30 howdy 23:01:05 dont think we have dgoulet and asn 23:01:16 I also saw gaba just a moment ago 23:01:18 teor, gaba: you around? 23:01:21 cool! 23:01:52 should we start by looking at the roadmap? 23:02:21 https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/boards 23:02:26 yes 23:02:35 are things looking OK here? 23:02:57 We have quite a bit of tickets that were in the roadmap for september 23:03:05 (yeah. not too much progress since people are mostly focusing on 042 stability.) 23:03:16 yeah, i have the feeling everyone is in 042 land right now 23:03:35 We should make a note that the next time we have a planned freeze, there will be 2 weeks of diminished time for other coding-related roadmap stuff 23:03:52 yes, we need to consider this next time 23:04:07 yeah, adding some space around freeze time sounds like a good idea 23:04:29 ok, nobody have anything roadmappy we need to discuss? 23:04:59 lets go to the 042 status: 23:05:03 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/042Status 23:05:47 we have two tickets with no owners, right now? 23:06:38 #31841 is a 042-must that is new 23:06:58 what does people think we do here? should gaba and distribute the new tickets that are coming in? 23:07:20 gaba and i* 23:07:21 * gaba checking 23:07:28 I could try to do #31841 23:07:37 I think I have a handle on how 23:07:58 wanna grab it? and you dont have too much on the plate already? 23:08:07 hahahahaha. I'll be ok :) 23:08:12 #31524 needs more information. maybe it should be removed from 042? 23:08:28 nickm: :-D 23:08:44 gaba: It's currently "security-low", so I don't want to pull it out 23:08:49 but I don't think we have much to go on there 23:09:59 I am here, sorry, just having some irc trouble 23:10:10 okay, let's leave the last ones without an owner for now. people seems to still have long lists of tickets pending 23:10:12 Wrt #31524, I think leaving it as needs_info is okay. We'll figure it out or we won't. It is _should_, so if we don't get any more info here, we can't do much. 23:10:24 cool 23:10:50 oh, also there is #31653, assigned, but with owner none. 23:11:09 I think we can defer that to 043 since it requires that you enable a nonstandard padding machine? 23:11:17 if I understand correctly? 23:11:20 mikeperry: (?) 23:11:23 it's like a 2/1000 chance of circuit failure otherwise 23:11:34 for our normal padding machines, only for hs rend circuits 23:11:39 oh. 23:11:41 that's not so good. 23:11:52 remind me, is padding on by default? 23:12:07 only if the middle relay happens to be 0.4.1.x+ 23:12:14 so, sometimes. 23:12:43 mikeperry: if we assign this one back to you, do you think you can get it done between 22 oct and not-too-long-after? 23:12:45 so out of all hs rend client circuits that have a second hop of 0.4.1.x+, 2/1000 will have a circuit failure during setup 23:13:15 I really do not want to ship with a reliability regression, even if it's only 0.2%. 23:13:20 yes, I can. I also spotted a related perf issue with the proposed fix 23:13:29 so I think I might ratyher take more time with this one 23:13:48 maybe do the easy thing in 042, and the hard thing in 043? 23:13:59 Or maybe you can get help with fixing up the tests? 23:14:05 (assuming that's the hard part) 23:14:11 the even easier thing is to make it not choose 0ms 23:14:26 then the tests won't cause an issue (I think) 23:14:37 I can try that fix later next week, maybe 23:14:47 FYI: about 1/3 of our relays are on 0.4.1 or later right now. After 0.4.2 is released, we might peak as high as 50% 0.4.1 or later. https://metrics.torproject.org/versions.html 23:14:58 so it would be OK to reassign it back to you, mikeperry? 23:15:03 i just did :) 23:15:06 great 23:15:19 is everybody OK with the tickets they have received from gaba and i during last week? we distributed them amount, but it might be some people want to swap tickets with others 23:15:30 distributed them out* 23:15:33 (it is late here) 23:15:33 I'm fine with mine 23:15:49 if someone has a Windows test environment handy, they might do a better job with #31036? 23:16:07 also there's a nonfatal assert log spam issue there that might not have an associated ticket? 23:16:10 * ahf looks 23:16:15 I don't think we can do anything about #31707 in 0.4.2, so I'm going to take it out of 042-should? 23:16:25 I think it needs a refactor or a redesign 23:16:48 i can take that one, catalyst! 23:16:54 ahf: thanks! 23:17:09 teor: that ticket refers to "this patch", but there does not seem to be a patch? 23:17:31 It's a copy of text from another ticket, I'll edit the text so it makes sense 23:17:39 As it stands, I don't think I grok what to do with #31707, so it's probably okay to defer 23:19:05 Probably some of the children of #21969 would help. Or maybe we've mitigated that bug enough? We don't have many new, open tickets about it. 23:19:26 this is feeling feature-like to me at this point 23:19:43 +1, let's defer 23:19:50 cool 23:20:04 the next question is: * Will everybody be done soon, especially with "must" tickets? 23:20:17 * ahf hopes to be done with his two 042-must tickets by tomorrow afternoon dk time 23:20:38 and the -should ones will come next week hopefully :-) 23:21:05 It would be very good if the -should ones get done in 042, but it is okay if the ones about documentation happen a bit later in the cycle. 23:21:20 Once all the musts are fixed, I will be happy opening 043 ahead of schedule. 23:21:53 Yeah we are still discussing changes to the merge policy, so I am happy for #29546 to wait 23:22:06 okay, defer that to 043? 23:22:14 cool 23:22:15 ahf: do you want to open a new ticket for the log-spamming assert in #31036 or should i? 23:22:28 catalyst: please do - i didnt see that part 23:22:35 Who can review #29427 23:23:22 #29427 is pretty simple code-wise, the tricky part is understanding why the delay should be "2" instead of "10" on clients 23:23:43 somebody with KIST experience would be best 23:24:30 who have kist experience that is not david? :o 23:24:36 It can be on me. :) 23:24:49 I've already read the patch and started discussing it 23:24:54 ok 23:25:42 do we have more things to talk about regarding 042? 23:25:44 setting myself as reviewer 23:25:51 thanks, nickm! 23:26:50 ok next item is: 23:26:57 * "Pull request requirements before review": 23:26:58 * Alex is going to create a proposal based on the retrospective 23:27:16 status there is that i started doing that today, but didnt finish, so that will be on the mailing list tomorrow 23:27:31 it is based on the discussion we had last night at the retrospective 23:27:56 the next section is around active proposals discussions 23:28:02 oh 23:28:15 we are getting a new item on the agenda, 2 sec 23:28:18 * nickm just added one, sorry 23:28:25 * Nick has a quick question about C style poll, for Catalyst and Teor. 23:28:28 go! 23:28:33 i have a quick question for catalyst and teor. I sent a link to a draft of the poll 23:28:38 (about C style) 23:28:59 my next step is to send to the list and ask for comments and suggested changes before we run the poll 23:29:16 do you want to comment before I send it to the list for comments, or should I just skip a step? :) 23:29:17 ahf: #31939; set to Tor:unspecified at the moment 23:29:25 thx catalyst! 23:30:06 nickm: I'd like to read it, and then I'll probably just say "ok" if there are no blockers 23:30:09 ok 23:30:20 I'll wait then. How about you, catalyst? 23:30:50 i've read it briefly, didn't see any major problems. kind of want to read it again first 23:30:56 ok. 23:31:06 I'll wait for a sign-off from each of you 23:31:09 thanks ! 23:31:16 cool 23:31:17 next item is: 23:31:26 * Opting-in to faster reviews and merges 23:31:26 * We discuss this new proposal from teor 23:31:27 * Target discussion end date: 15 October 23:31:39 * catalyst is lost in a sea of browser tabs 23:31:48 wrt that proposal... 23:31:59 catalyst: XD 23:32:05 my chrome also have a ton of tabs right now 23:32:26 I think dgoulet thought that having it relate to regular review assignments was unrealistic. 23:33:44 teor: a question for you. Did you envision that this proposal would eventually be the primary way of us getting faster reviews, or do you think we should look for some way to get all reviews assigned and done faster? 23:33:52 After reading dgoulet's comments, I think the proposal is a bit heavy. 23:34:17 nickm: I think we have two options: 23:34:42 1) Work out how to get reviews and merges done faster, for everyone, all the time. 23:35:29 2) Sometimes, some people do reviews faster, usually because they're working on the same sponsored work 23:35:54 We're already doing 2) 23:36:45 I would really like 1), because it's universal - it happens for everyone. But if some people like the weekly cycle, I don't know if we can make it happen. 23:37:41 To be clear, I don't think we should force things to be faster than they need to be. But I think we can cut down on unnecessary delays. 23:37:54 (done) 23:37:59 I think we have some problems to overcome to get to 1), but it would be good if we can do so. 23:38:00 * catalyst hunts for proposal text 23:38:29 I don't think dgoulet and asn would be happy doing assignment every day. I hear that in some organizations, assignments happen automatically. 23:39:02 i think in those orgs they happen based on authorship of the code that is being modified in the patch, no? 23:39:04 Yeah, I think that manual assignment is unnecessary. An auto-assignment would be much better. 23:39:05 if we remove the three-person requirement, we can remove some of the complexity of the proposal 23:39:09 like with githubs suggested reviewers? 23:39:17 I would be happy getting new assignments every day, with the expectation that I get to them during the next working day at the latest. 23:39:31 Yes, I think that's reasonable. 23:40:12 we don't need to make everybody follow that process though. If somebody gets really overwhelmed by same day reviews, they can get reviews of stuff that is marked as not needing to be same day, or something. 23:40:40 how about author can assign a reviewer? 23:40:53 +1 I was just writing that 23:41:10 yeah. what if we get rid of the assignment from david and george and you the author are responsible for finding an available reviewer? 23:41:15 Then the role of the review assigners is to deal with exceptions: no reviewer, old reviews, rebalancing review load. 23:41:32 oh, like a hybrid 23:41:47 hm. I think we could do one step better if we can find some way to make the balancing happen early 23:41:54 Well, we will still have volunteer tickets with no reviewer. 23:42:01 true 23:42:29 (ISTR that I used to be the default reviewer for everybody, and it was not a good situation for anyone.) 23:43:19 asn and dgoulet can still assign reviewers for PRs that are not from the team 23:43:25 ^ what teor said 23:43:46 yeah, and then if you want something reviewed during the week you reach out to someone else from the team? 23:43:54 let's mull this over and see what asn and dgoulet think about it. How does that sound? 23:44:01 yes 23:44:22 sounds good 23:44:23 I think we should have teams working on sponsored work decide their own reviewers. If you're doing large non-sponsored work you find your own reviewer. And then d & g do the leftovers. 23:44:49 lets hear what they think too, yeah 23:45:01 ok, we have 15 min. left. next item is: 23:45:06 * Commit Bits For CI And Review Roles 23:45:06 * We discuss this new proposal from teor 23:45:07 * Target discussion end date: 22 October 23:45:26 so far this one seems uncontroversial 23:45:39 yes, that was also my initial thought 23:46:04 Should I revise the proposal based on asn's comments? 23:47:01 I'm +0 on that 23:47:16 nobody seems to oppose the change 23:47:39 yeah, unless anybody disagrees with it, it seems reasonable? 23:47:48 Ok, I think at least the clarifications asn suggested would be useful. 23:48:00 yep 23:48:23 I'll re-issue a lightly edited version, and then ask everyone else to vote. 23:48:31 cool! thanks teor 23:48:36 next item is: 23:48:37 * "Draft merge policy for discussion and vote" 23:48:37 * New proposal from nickm based on retrospective. 23:48:38 * Target discussion end date: 16 October 23:48:52 this one also seemed uncontroversial 23:49:14 so far :) 23:50:03 nobody have anything to add here ? :-) 23:50:44 i take that as a no, i guess we'll continue on the ML with that if anything shows up. 23:50:54 okay, i have one last item and i also see no "need help with" items on the pad 23:51:17 so, i was wondering now that we are making use of our new shiny meta policy how do we want to announce these decisions in the rest of the organisation 23:51:34 they mostly affect us in the team, but i think it is important that other people are aware of how we work so they have an idea about what is going on with us 23:52:03 my initial thought was that i could every now and then send out summaries about what we have decided one once a policy goes into effect 23:52:12 but if other people have better ideas i am also very open to that 23:52:19 is updating our wiki pages good enough? (maybe plus a brief announcement summarizing the changes?) 23:52:32 i think the wiki page is great and the summary would contain a link to that, yeah 23:53:24 I think monthly reports from the team to the rest of the organization is good. And this can be announced there. 23:53:29 +1 23:53:30 yes 23:53:37 good idea to combine them, gaba 23:53:46 cool, i will try to do that then 23:53:51 Similar to what other teams are doing, something simple about the work that has been done last month. 23:54:04 ahf: you can start a pad and everybody help in the next meeting 23:54:13 yep, i want us to have those as well, was planning on beginning on a pad tomorrow and then people can look at it on monday 23:54:18 yep 23:54:21 sounds good 23:54:23 like the anti-censorship team does 23:54:26 yes 23:54:29 cool! lets do that 23:54:36 does anybody have anything else we need to discuss? 23:55:22 not from me 23:55:25 cool, i take that as a no! 23:55:36 ok. have a great day or evening as applicable! 23:55:39 i wotn be sending out a summary until i have had some sleep. i am so tired tonight for some reason 23:55:42 thanks! 23:55:44 thanks all for the meeting o/ 23:55:45 see you around 23:55:47 #endmeeting