18:16:29 #startmeeting s58 May 11th 18:16:29 Meeting started Mon May 11 18:16:29 2020 UTC. The chair is gaba. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:16:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 18:16:40 hello everyone 18:16:44 hi folks 18:16:47 hi 18:16:50 hi 18:17:13 what did you all worked on last week? 18:17:35 hrm. 18:17:42 should we go one-by-one? 18:17:51 sure 18:17:59 previously we used the meeting pad for describing what we did 18:18:01 say if you are blockecd by anything too 18:18:05 hi! 18:18:11 yes, let's add it in the pad 18:18:30 next time we can do the status in the pad (i don't even have tasks yet, but i think it works) 18:18:43 yes 18:18:51 do/write _before_ the meeting 18:18:54 pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/_kbebKhZvNcUuqxQL5NV 18:18:54 one by one on irc or on pad? 18:18:59 pad please 18:20:17 gaba: i added an item to the agenda 18:20:25 yes, thanks 18:20:32 feel free to add any other item to the agenda 18:20:50 i'm going to move the agenda to the top of statuses 18:21:10 perfect 18:21:18 GeKo: i am interested in the toolchain stuff this week. maybe it makes sense for me to dive into a review there? maybe together with somebody else? maybe i can do it alone? 18:22:18 ok many tickets 18:22:44 whatever works for you 18:22:56 i can help you navigating things if questions arise 18:23:52 it seems like it's a lot of smaller patches that are all needed to move on? 18:24:07 yes 18:24:23 #33626 and #33973 are the larger and more complicated ones 18:24:35 yeah, i'm looking at #33626 right now 18:24:47 because that's building mozilla-beta essentially 18:24:55 fat in this context is because it supports multiple architectures? 18:25:19 yes 18:25:25 you get all the archs in one .aar 18:25:36 ok, if everybody else thinks that is a wise use of my time, i think that would be interesting 18:26:22 ahf: for reviewing GeKo's patch? 18:26:26 yes 18:26:29 patches 18:26:39 sounds good 18:26:49 yes, that's a good use of your time 18:26:50 thanks 18:27:03 ok, i'm gonna begin with that tomorrow morning, and try out the things GeKo has been doing as well 18:27:27 have you successfully run tor-browser-build? 18:27:31 or only compiling fenix? 18:28:18 only the latter. i have build tor-browser reproducible two weeks ago and the yolo method where you build for your own arch and copy over the firefox directory into an already extracted "installation" 18:28:25 i don't know if you have a name for the last thing 18:28:49 like where i *just* build for linux, copy over the Browser dir, then get the PT's and Tor, etc. from the extracted zip file which contained a complete TB build 18:29:01 okay, we can discuss this after the meeting 18:29:07 that's a good start 18:29:10 *nods* 18:29:28 okay, i think i have all my s58 things added 18:29:37 now let's look what ther other folks have done 18:30:30 mikeperry: are you spending some of your time on networking work? 18:30:39 i thought that was beginning until later in the year 18:30:47 *wasn't 18:31:01 okay, i caught up on the pad 18:31:29 I am spending a fair amount of time answering mails on network proposals and such still, yeah 18:31:47 particularly HS DoS, FlashFlow, and Congestion Control 18:31:53 I think it is most wrapping up 18:32:12 my big issue is I am not sure which components of Fenix to audit and how 18:32:19 because it is a monster of like 40 git treees 18:32:30 mikeperry: a good start is mozilla-beta doing the usual things 18:32:52 and then again we need to decided something on #33939 18:33:06 and depending on how that decision goes 18:33:13 there is more or less to audit :) 18:33:17 wait what is mozilla-beta? is that separate from mozilla-central? 18:33:26 it's mozilla-central 18:33:39 which moved to beta in a stabilized form 18:34:14 like firefox 77 moved recently from mozilla-central to beta 18:34:26 and will be the next release on mozilla-release 18:34:34 we have to start somewhere 18:34:38 mikeperry: have you looked at this yet? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1620045 18:36:11 I've seen that before but niot dug deeply into it.. the rust pieces are just one part of the puzzle 18:36:20 sure 18:37:10 GeKo: so you recommend starting with https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev and doing the diff of esr68 to that beta branch, and checking that, for proxy issues, as per usual? 18:37:23 yes 18:37:24 and doig that to start, while we figure more about what we want to actually build into fenix? 18:37:29 yes 18:37:39 ok makes sense. that I can do 18:37:41 it will be the largest part of the proxy bypass audit, too 18:37:54 and likely the most important one as well 18:38:13 we could start from mozilla-release for now, too 18:38:17 well last time we found a ton of issues in the android java API usage :/ 18:38:26 true 18:38:27 I am worried about that with this huge pile of disparate components 18:39:11 sure, but we're not at the point where we can audit it yet 18:39:16 is there any android java stuff built from gecko-dev at all now for fenix? 18:39:23 or is all the android stuff in these outside repos 18:40:09 there is stuff left 18:40:21 but not "much" 18:40:23 :) 18:40:56 but starting with the core is a good start 18:41:16 and we can move into upper-layers as we decide which peices we're integrating 18:41:17 ok 18:41:52 so this beta branch no longer has old fennec stuff? or is it still actually there just disabled? 18:42:02 it was deleted 18:42:11 ok that is easier then 18:42:16 yeah 18:42:27 now only geckoview (the java/kotlin wrapper of gecko) 18:42:37 but there is still sketchy stuff in the tree 18:42:45 like thirdparty exoplayer2 18:44:32 but, as GeKo mentioned last week 18:44:49 swe should be involved on that bugzilla ticket 18:45:17 otherwise rust will remain an open problem 18:45:34 if we can reduce the risk of proxy-bypass via rust, then that is a solid improvement 18:46:26 so mikeperry: you are fine with what you have to done this week, right? 18:46:29 okay, 13 minutes remaining before the hour. 18:46:32 can we take a look at what antonela is asking 18:46:35 about ux-team tickets 18:46:46 maybe is not urgent? 18:46:50 yes, i lost track of what is the scope for this grant so i did the naive query and things there seems ok 18:47:02 it is mostly remaining work from last mobile grant but I will need to review the old UI and how it matches with the current fenix experience 18:47:18 antonela: we can look at it at the end of may for what I see. 18:47:20 looking at https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?cc=~&keywords=~ux-team&sponsor=Sponsor58&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=status&col=priority&col=milestone&order=priority 18:47:33 ye 18:47:39 gaba: sounds good for me 18:47:46 i am not sure whether we'll have a chance to get to any of that 18:47:51 haha 18:47:52 ok 18:47:54 maybe? 18:48:09 so is easier if we remove the ux-team tag from tickets that we are *not* going to work with 18:48:21 so i can estimate real work 18:49:35 it seems to me it's too early to commit to any of those tickets 18:50:00 ok 18:50:01 let's look again at the end of may or beginning of june. Antonela: you are right now with hands full on s30, right? 18:50:11 among other things and fires 18:50:12 yes 18:50:21 ok 18:50:38 okey, so we will review it at the end of next month 18:50:44 and i am not needed on this meeting 18:50:48 am i right? 18:50:50 acat is asking about #27105 18:50:58 right, not yet :) 18:51:11 antonela: #34178 18:51:16 antonela: we'll need to talk about #33658 18:51:23 is the first we need to solved 18:51:32 *solve 18:51:34 yeah, and then O2.2 :) 18:51:40 after we did #33658 18:51:43 :) 18:52:07 why i dont have those tickets in my query? 18:52:12 i'd already be happy if we'd just get those two done by september 18:52:17 they are marked as ux-team 18:52:17 ohhh because sponsor is not sponsor58 18:52:29 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?cc=~&keywords=~ux-team&sponsor=%5ESponsor58&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=status&col=priority&col=milestone&order=priority 18:52:31 so here we are 18:52:32 i see 18:52:37 ahh, I see 18:52:51 i want to use s58-must for the things that must be in this project 18:53:09 i think it's not unreasonable to assume we have some idea for #33658 by the end of this month 18:53:23 okey, that changes everything 18:53:41 so #33658 is prior and then #34178? 18:53:52 seems like it.. 18:54:27 acat: so what needs still to get fixed? 18:54:36 for #27105 18:54:42 GeKo: but all the child tickets of #33658 are the tickets you just told me that will be difficult to achieve 18:55:07 i don't know who made them child tickets 18:55:10 :) 18:55:14 and #30832 is one of acat's ticket and is the only one that is missing a reviewer 18:55:41 antonela: i think that is wrongg 18:55:51 among other tickets that don't belong to s58 18:56:02 GeKo: ok, lets try again next week. The expectations are me working on S30 this month, so maybe discuss it in june? 18:56:23 antonela: I'm trying to keep this one up to date: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/sponsors/Sponsor58 18:56:45 GeKo: for #27105 i only fixed the preferences test and bumped some deps to get it working with 77 18:56:46 must 58 tickets in each obj 18:57:02 gaba: ok 18:57:05 but there are several tests failing 18:57:25 antonela: to be fair #25764 is not a child of that one, so it's not all of them :) 18:57:41 acat: do you use try for that? 18:58:22 GeKo: but this is the tor-browser-bundle-testsuite, not sure if try can be used for that 18:58:38 for unit tests, i did #30832 18:59:04 okay, we're at the hour. 18:59:12 acat, GeKo: should we dicuss in tor-dev? 18:59:18 acat: i see 18:59:41 ok 18:59:48 i did not try to run the tests in #30832 in mozilla infra either 18:59:51 please take ownership of tickets you are working on 19:00:07 i'm going to close the meeting and discussion continues in tor-dev, ok? 19:00:12 yes 19:00:13 good 19:00:13 GeKo: tomorrow i will start setting myself as reviewer on some of your tickets? 19:00:15 thanks gaba 19:00:19 thanks everyone 19:00:20 thanks gaba 19:00:22 thanks all o/ 19:00:25 ahf: fine with me 19:00:25 #endmeeting