23:15:29 <gaba> #startmeeting Sponsor 31
23:15:29 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Nov  5 23:15:29 2019 UTC.  The chair is gaba. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
23:15:29 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
23:15:33 <teor> We have a way to make sure it doesn't happen twice a year: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam#MeetingsSchedule
23:15:44 <nickm> it only works if people check it.
23:15:46 <gaba> yes, i should have check as I had the same problem this morning
23:15:58 <teor> Indeed: "The primary meeting will track US daylight saving time. The canonical Patch Party time is in UTC and will not change with daylight saving time. The optional catch-up will track European daylight saving time."
23:16:10 <gaba> I added an agenda to the pad
23:16:24 <gaba> please check if there is anything else that we need to add
23:18:22 <nickm> gaba: I think we're ok?
23:18:23 <gaba> Today is the last meeting for this sponsor. We will be writing the report at the end of the month.
23:18:30 <gaba> ok
23:18:45 <gaba> First we could go by updates on the 3 parts that we decided to complete a few months ago
23:18:55 <teor> Oh, you don't want another meeting on 20 November?
23:19:40 <gaba> I was thinking on not having other meeting but we could if people think we can do one for wrapping up
23:20:06 <nickm> it might be a good idea, and help with the report.
23:20:13 <gaba> ok
23:20:20 <catalyst> yeah i'd be ok with a wrap up meeting
23:21:16 <teor> +1
23:21:39 <catalyst> 20th? oh it would be UTC Nov 19th
23:21:50 <gaba> ok
23:21:58 <teor> 2300 UTC November 19
23:22:09 <teor> I just added 14 days to my local time :-)
23:22:58 <catalyst> pesky bodies liking to synchronize to solar days
23:23:55 <gaba> ok, should we start with updates?
23:24:19 <teor> yes
23:24:26 <nickm> +1
23:25:34 <nickm> So, catalyst: want to talk about docs stuff? I can talk about doxygen too.
23:25:41 <catalyst> ok
23:26:07 <catalyst> i was helping with GSoD stuff but i did start writing up some of the design goal docs. not yet ready for review
23:26:28 <catalyst> i haven't looked at the Doxygen work in detail but so far it looks good!
23:26:50 <gaba> catalyst: do you think that is something that can be wrap up at the end of november?
23:27:05 <catalyst> gaba: i think so
23:27:35 <gaba> when do you think it will be ready for review?
23:27:39 <nickm> wrt doxygen: I've been focusing on exposing our existing code documentation and integrating it with our architectural documentation.
23:28:58 <nickm> (sorry; I'll wait for catalyst to answer your question, gaba)
23:29:08 <gaba> nickm: same question, is this going to be wrap up in november?
23:29:15 <gaba> ack
23:29:40 <nickm> we could take what we have now and call it. It will be much better by end-of-november, though.
23:29:42 <catalyst> gaba: looking at #29215, i think i wanted to find people to take #32207 and #32209? nickm?
23:29:56 <nickm> I'm on #32209
23:30:25 <nickm> I can do #32207 too if I should.
23:30:32 <catalyst> nickm: thanks. you're not the owner so i didn't see that in the parent ticket summary
23:30:45 * gaba just assigned that ticket to nickm
23:31:31 <teor> I'll take #32295
23:32:47 <catalyst> i didn't see #32295?
23:33:03 <nickm> I think that's more about item 2. Are we still on 1?
23:33:14 <gaba> yes
23:33:57 <nickm> I will try to have drafts of the architecure stuff  #32207, #32209, and the subsystems one, ready for review by monday.
23:34:11 <nickm> I'll also be writing more current-architecture docs
23:34:20 <catalyst> gaba: i should have some drafts of my docs by next week
23:34:35 <gaba> ok. thanks
23:34:46 <teor> (Sorry, I thought we were giving out all of the -must tickets)
23:34:55 <gaba> is that all for the update on docs?
23:34:56 <catalyst> nickm: did you have a summary about #29214?
23:35:37 <nickm> I think that #29214 is turning into the doxygen integration.  I've moved most of the old tor-guts into doxygen; there are a few more pieces to go.
23:35:54 <catalyst> nickm: cool
23:35:56 <nickm> mostly it has turned into our missing high-level doxygen documentation
23:36:54 * catalyst adds themselves to CC on the children of that parent ticket
23:37:50 <nickm> i will go through recent doxygen stuff and make sure it has #29214 as parent.
23:38:21 <nickm> any more on documentation work?
23:38:24 <gaba> ok. What about 2. Modularization to do in 0.4.3 ?
23:38:30 <gaba> oops, sorry
23:39:01 <catalyst> i think we're fine on doc stuff
23:39:15 <nickm> teor, want to do the modularization update?
23:39:25 <teor> Sure!
23:39:59 <teor> Nick and I are working on modularisation in #29211 and #31851
23:40:18 <teor> I'll start with #31851
23:41:07 <teor> Yesterday I merged #32213, which turns off the major dirauth and relay config options when those modules are disabled
23:41:42 <teor> It also turns off all the relay and dirauth config validation and actions, including server pluggable transports
23:42:55 <teor> I don't know if I reported #32123 in our last meeting, that was the initial work that disables routermode when the relay module is disabled
23:43:36 <teor> Does anyone have any questions, before I move on to config.c and #29211?
23:43:58 <teor> (I'll talk about next steps at the end)
23:44:13 <nickm> ok by me
23:44:24 <gaba> ok
23:44:45 <teor> There are so many tickets under #29211, it's hard for me to summarise, so I'll try to do it from memory
23:45:25 <teor> Nick has done a bunch of refactoring of config.c, and we're working on #30866 right now
23:46:13 <teor> That ticket adds a per-module config object, and implements a small object for a crypto module
23:46:24 <teor> * per-module config objects
23:47:28 <teor> I think I'm done with config.c, unless Nick has anything to add?
23:47:58 <teor> I also remembered that catalyst is splitting control.c, but I haven't been involved in that much
23:48:11 <teor> In #29210
23:48:13 <nickm> briefly, up till now we've all been leading up to #30866. Once that's in, we can handle config options and state variables in individual modules
23:48:47 <teor> catalyst, did you want to talk about control.c ?
23:48:48 <nickm> The code is written for config and state. The new/change code is at 91% coverage, so I have a few more tests to write.
23:49:07 <nickm> also I need to talk to teor about whether I should try to handle options_act_reversible in this branch, or a subsequent one.
23:49:17 <nickm> I'm leaning "subsequent" since this one is getting big.
23:49:18 <catalyst> teor: i think #30984 is the part that's most likely to get done by end of November
23:49:20 <nickm> but I want teor's thoughts there
23:50:11 <catalyst> teor: i'll set you to do early review on #30984 unless you don't have time for it?
23:50:20 <teor> nickm: a subsequent branch is fine
23:50:25 <teor> catalyst: that's ok
23:50:36 <catalyst> oh nevermind i apparently already did that
23:50:41 <gaba> #30984 is the only ticket missing from #29210
23:51:35 <catalyst> there are other things that could go under #29210 but we can do them incrementally later
23:52:02 <gaba> ok
23:52:07 <nickm> teor: okay.  Then let's talk for a minute after this meeting about #30866
23:52:17 <teor> catalyst: can you open a pull request? Commenting on individual lines is easier in a PR.
23:52:23 <gaba> ok, anything else for modularization in november?
23:52:28 <catalyst> teor: ok
23:52:51 <nickm> well, there's the rest of #29211 and #31851
23:53:25 <teor> So next steps on the relay modularisation are #32244, #32245, and maybe #32139 if we decide to split out the relay and dirauth config objects
23:53:39 <nickm> for #29211, we can modularize more of the code. I'm going to see how much of our code I and remove the get_options() dependency from... it won't be close to 100%, but it will be progress.
23:54:05 <nickm> Once #30866 is in I think we can report #29211 as "completed" from a deliverable POV
23:54:09 <nickm> the rest is polishing
23:54:31 <teor> catalyst: just checking, do you expect to do more control refactoring under #29210 for sponsor 31 in November?
23:54:35 <nickm> teor: I'm glad to take any of those if you assign it to me. I'm worried about stepping in your way though.
23:55:11 <catalyst> teor: it would be nice to do more work on #29210 but it's s31-can so the doc work should probably take priority because it's s31-must
23:55:29 <teor> Sure, that's understandable
23:55:58 <teor> nickm: #32139 would be the best for you, since you understand how to split config objects. Let's do dirauth first, because it's smaller?
23:56:01 <teor> (Maybe we should split that ticket.)
23:56:31 <nickm> okay
23:57:06 <nickm> under relay modularization, we do want to get to a point where there is significant amounts of code we're removing.
23:57:23 <nickm> but I thik we will at the rate we're progressing.
23:57:42 <nickm> teor: if you split and assign, I'll maybe be able to get to part of #32139 next week?
23:58:10 <teor> Now there's #32395
23:59:05 <nickm> thanks!
23:59:52 <gaba> ok, anythinge else for this?
00:00:08 <teor> But yours is #32139
00:00:54 <nickm> ok
00:01:34 <teor> There are a bunch of small utility fix tickets that we can do at any time, but could be good if we have leftover time in sponsor 31: #32369,
00:01:42 <nickm> let's talk for a moment after this meeting.   Any more on modularization before we get to number 3?
00:02:01 <nickm> err, I meant,
00:02:01 <teor> I think that's pretty much it
00:02:14 <nickm> teor: let's talk for a moment after this meeting about #30866.
00:02:25 <nickm> shall I talk about C style?
00:02:40 <gaba> please do
00:02:55 <nickm> I've run the survey and published the results at people.torproject.org/~nickm/netteam-survey-results.py
00:03:58 <nickm> I tried to smmarize what I think the findings are as people.torproject.org/~nickm/netteam-survey-results-with-commentary.py
00:04:41 <nickm> I've tried a few possible tools for automatically formatting our code.  I don't have them set up perfectly yet, but they might give us a flavor of what it would be like to use them.  Their outputs and configurations for a sample file are at http://people.torproject.org/~nickm/tor-c-style.tgz
00:04:52 <nickm> I have a received a little feedback on the above
00:05:05 <nickm> I'm not 100% sure of next steps
00:05:48 <nickm> I could wait for more commentary
00:05:55 <nickm> I could play with one/all of the formatting tools more
00:05:55 <catalyst> i'd still like to know what people think about my suggestion of adopting a style that's as close as possible to an existing accepted style (BSD KNF)
00:06:02 <nickm> I could write a concrete style proposal.
00:07:00 <nickm> I think it's a good principle to default to an existing style when we don't disagree with it strongly.
00:07:37 <teor> I think tool support for existing styles is likely to be better, too
00:08:17 <catalyst> i specifically asked for feedback about a concrete style suggestion along those lines and got none
00:10:11 <nickm> "BSD Kernel Normal
00:10:14 <nickm> Form, except with 4-column indents and a few minor changes" ?
00:10:19 <catalyst> nickm: yeah
00:10:45 <nickm> I think the "a few minor changes" part makes it hard to respond exactly
00:11:02 <nickm> I agree that our current preferred style is indeed what you describe, though
00:11:33 <catalyst> i envisioned "a few minor changes" meaning whatever stuff is pre-existing in our code that we have good (preferably documented) reasons for doing differently
00:11:58 <teor> Could we try a concrete proposal that lists the minor changes?
00:12:15 <nickm> I'd like to try a concrete proposal including tooling.
00:12:31 <nickm> Like, we should say what tooling we will use, and include a configuration file.
00:12:34 <gaba> This is something that can happen later and does not have to be done this month in November, right? Is it requirement for anything else that you are all working on?
00:12:36 <nickm> and describe what tooling we need to build
00:12:47 <nickm> nope. Doesn't have to be done in november
00:12:57 <catalyst> do we have a s31 deliverable for this?
00:13:20 <nickm> i don't think so
00:13:41 <catalyst> oh, #31177
00:13:53 <gaba> we do not
00:13:54 <catalyst> but it's s31-can so we can continue it after November if need be
00:14:01 <gaba> yes
00:14:34 <nickm> it fits naturally as an overhead task within our ongoing development. I'd like to get as far as we can in november, but it's fine if we keep refining afterwards
00:14:41 <gaba> ok
00:14:58 <gaba> then the next step for this is to get a concrete proposal?
00:15:46 <nickm> i guess, unless the team wants to talk about it more
00:16:32 <gaba> ok
00:16:59 <gaba> the last thing in the agenda is to bring the must-tickets that have no responsible. Right now is only #31509
00:18:16 * gaba brb - just a sec
00:18:29 <nickm> teor: what do you want to do about that one? It's not truly a "must" for the funder, but from a development pov we should fix anything that's broken
00:18:33 <teor> That's a ticket for us to check manually, because "make test-stem" fails in our CI
00:19:08 <teor> We need to run "make test-stem" manually on all our changes, or fix #30901
00:19:15 <catalyst> test-stem doesn't work reliably for me even when run manually, so i'd rather someone else did it
00:19:17 <teor> So we can find the stem bug
00:19:24 <nickm> what is for us to do in November for #31509 or #30901?
00:19:43 <teor> "Run 'make test-stem' manually after every change"
00:19:58 <teor> and fix things if they are broken
00:20:46 * gaba is back
00:20:47 <teor> I don't mind if we close the ticket, and work out another way of making sure that we run the test
00:21:15 <nickm> qq: teor, does stem pass for you right now? I'm
00:21:20 <teor> catalyst: if you can reproduce some "make test-stem" failures, that would be helpful. But maybe not in November.
00:21:25 <nickm> getting a big pile of errors that seem unrelated to our work.
00:21:32 <teor> * maybe not a priority in November
00:21:33 <nickm> stem.SocketError: [Errno 111] Connection refused
00:21:42 <gaba> +1 to closing the ticket
00:22:03 <teor> nickm: it works fine for me
00:22:20 <teor> otherwise I would have opened some more specific bugs :-)
00:23:04 <catalyst> teor: i've tried before, but they're often intermittent and i rarely have time to chase down all the possibilities
00:23:10 <teor> Ok, so I will close the ticket, and make sure I regularly run "make test-stem"
00:23:25 <nickm> teor: thanks! I'll try to investigate more.
00:23:44 <gaba> thanks
00:23:50 <gaba> anything else for this meeting?
00:24:33 * catalyst is good
00:24:46 * teor is ok
00:25:03 <nickm> i'm fine
00:25:14 <nickm> teor: catch up with you in #tor-dev in a minute or two? or take a break first?
00:25:23 <gaba> ok then. thanks! very productive on moving forward
00:25:25 <teor> Now is good
00:25:26 <gaba> #endmeeting