14:59:18 #startmeeting metrics team meeting 14:59:18 Meeting started Thu Jun 11 14:59:18 2020 UTC. The chair is karsten. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:59:18 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:59:20 hi gaba! 14:59:20 o/ 14:59:24 hi phw! 14:59:25 o/ 14:59:30 hi jnewsome! 14:59:58 i keep coming for the friendly welcome. no other meeting has that 15:00:06 hi! 15:00:10 hi acute! 15:00:13 phw: yay. :) 15:00:31 tomcat, :p 15:00:51 https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-metricsteam-2020.1-keep <- pad 15:01:19 please add topics! 15:02:38 nothing to add from me 15:05:01 okay, we have one more topic on the agenda. let's start. 15:05:06 Setting up op-??3 instances 15:05:24 we're still running a quite old onionperf version on op-??2 instances. 15:05:44 which I think is okay, because we shouldn't update that all the time to have some continuity. 15:05:57 still, it may be about time to upgrade. 15:06:14 should we start three new instances? 15:06:31 I put some more thoughts on the pad. 15:06:43 one thing we need to decide is which tor version we're going to run. 15:07:04 so far we have been running tor from debian stable. but if we do that, we won't have the #34303 fix. 15:07:22 we can either run 0.4.3 or 0.4.4 or master. 15:07:43 or wait until that patch gets backported to 0.3.5 and included in debian stable. 15:08:08 i like the idea of retiring op-??2 one week later. it should give us enough time to notice and react to issues 15:08:16 I'd go for changing one thing at a time 15:08:41 phw: sounds good. fortunately we have anough VMs available to do that. 15:08:55 acute: hmm, or maybe groups of things? 15:09:40 ideally, I'd like to run these instances for a month without changing them, unless they're broken. 15:09:44 again, for continuity. 15:09:55 it would be good to spot if we're introduced any bugs 15:11:12 but if there not enough VMs, switching to a newer version of tor is reasonable 15:11:49 we can run several VMs. 15:12:08 but the idea was to keep op-??2 running for that reason. 15:12:51 ah, I misread 15:12:54 how about we include the first two changes in op-??3 and wait for #34303 to be backported for op-??4? 15:12:56 sounds like a good plan 15:13:35 okay, great! 15:14:04 alright, that's all on this topic from me. 15:14:15 moving on: 15:14:19 Trac/GitLab migration 15:14:44 if you can, please take a look at the test migrations and see if anything's going to be really bad for us in the future. 15:15:03 other than that, expect not to have trac available over the weekend. 15:15:39 any questions on this migration? 15:15:49 (not that I could answer them, but I could forward them.) 15:16:03 I'm here to answer any question 15:16:22 Is there anything right now in the metrics org in gitlab that people are using? 15:16:35 http://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/metrics 15:16:54 or we can start from zero from trac into a new Tor Metrics org in gitlab? 15:17:15 I see that all the repos there were used 9 months ago 15:17:36 so I assume we can remove them. acute and irl were using onionperf but then it got moved 15:17:49 I'm not using anything there. acute? 15:17:59 have not used anything there in a while 15:18:13 ok 15:18:15 sounds like starting from zero is the way to go. 15:18:21 yes 15:18:22 sounds good 15:18:28 cool! 15:18:51 anything else on the trac/gitlab topic? 15:19:11 I look forward to the new workflow :) 15:19:21 yes! :) 15:19:52 alright, moving on: 15:19:58 Any blockers? 15:20:05 anyone blocked by anything or anyone? 15:20:19 maybe we can discuss something here to unblock you? 15:21:12 nothing from me 15:21:26 same 15:21:36 okay, great! 15:21:52 last topic: 15:21:53 How can I tell what trac ID introduced a given line of code? (should we merge branches with --no-ff?) 15:22:00 yes, maybe! 15:22:09 which project does that? so that I can look? 15:22:28 some context: i stumbled upon a bug the other day and found it difficult to find out in what ticket i should comment on it 15:22:34 bridgedb does 15:22:56 i merge branches with --no-ff, which introduces a merge commit 15:23:07 I had so far avoided them. :D 15:23:12 but I see your point. 15:23:18 i don't mean to bikeshed, fwiw 15:23:29 no, this is fine. 15:23:52 I'll take a look at bridgedb and also read a bit more about this. 15:24:15 it might be that I'll do the next merge to some task-xy-merged branch for you to take a look before it goes to master. 15:24:18 does that sound okay? 15:24:19 thanks karsten. we're following this development model with bridgedb: https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ 15:24:52 yes, sounds good! 15:25:35 great! thanks for the suggestion. always welcome. 15:25:48 okay, do we have anything else for today? 15:26:32 not from me 15:26:41 not from me 15:26:47 not from me 15:26:59 do we need to talk about my ticket I handed back? 15:27:18 acute: do you have any questions on that? 15:27:36 if not, are you still cc'ed on that ticket, jnewsome? 15:27:42 karsten: yup 15:27:50 not just now, at the moment I'm collecting tgen 1.0.0 data before moving on to the analysis bit 15:28:02 yay :) 15:28:21 ok, just wanted to make sure it actually was handed off to someone and not lost between the cracks :) 15:28:32 ah, jnewsome, do you still need the VM? it's okay to keep it, but if you don't need it anyway, we can turn it off as well. 15:29:16 hmm, it could be handy, but if it's a scarce resource i can hand it back for now 15:29:32 no, it's okay to keep it. if it becomes a scarce resource I'll ask again. :) 15:29:41 thanks for taking care of the hand-off! 15:30:04 okay, anything else? 15:30:34 if not, talk to you next week. thanks, everyone! o/ 15:30:39 o/ 15:30:40 o/ 15:30:44 thank you! bye o/ 15:30:55 #endmeeting