17:00:52 <nickm> #startmeeting weekly network team meeting 17:00:52 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Jun 19 17:00:52 2017 UTC. The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:52 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:55 <nickm> Hello everybody! 17:01:00 <ahf> hello! 17:01:04 <mikeperry> hi 17:01:09 <pastly> ayyy 17:01:15 <nickm> let's take a moment to put our updates on the happy-fun pad that teor started for us at http://5jp7xtmox6jyoqd5.onion/p/csrVSo66GUmG 17:01:20 <nickm> (also available at pad.riseup.net) 17:02:31 <Yawning> hm 17:03:10 <nickm> Also, a process hack: If there is something in your update, or somebody else's update, that you would like to discuss: please BOLDFACE the relevant words. 17:04:52 <nickm> Sebastian, isis, armadev, isabela, meeting in progress if you like. 17:05:05 <nickm> komlo: ibid 17:06:31 <nickm> any more updates in progress? If not, let's start! 17:06:45 <nickm> teor and dgoulet aren't around, so we'll have to hold any questions we have for them. 17:06:52 <Yawning> is there a "batch uncc me and never e-mail me about this again" thing for trac 17:06:54 <pastly> :( 17:07:00 <nickm> let's ask each other questions now? 17:07:21 <Sebastian> hi, I'm here 17:07:27 <nickm> Yawning: you can batch-remove yourself from the cc list of anything you're cc'd on, but I odn't know if that's sufficient to make it never email you. For everything else, there's procmail 17:07:42 <isis> hi ./ 17:07:46 <Yawning> mmk 17:07:55 <haxxpop> hello! 17:07:59 <nickm> hihi 17:08:10 <nickm> Yawning: as somebody who's subscribed to tor-bugs@, I am not the best person to ask 17:08:29 <nickm> ahf: are the log files all in now? How is that going? 17:09:12 <isabela> o/ 17:10:10 <ahf> nickm: there is enough for me to analyze them - going to write a small python script that extracts the info from the debug log we added in march/april where we get sizes out of tor. was going to start digging into that after this meeting 17:10:27 <nickm> Also I wanted to bring up, for anybody who wasn't in wilmington, that I replaced my callgraph generator with a better one. See https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/nickm/calltool.git/ 17:10:41 <nickm> might not work for others; patches welcome. 17:10:52 <nickm> ahf: great 17:11:10 <ahf> one of my tests ran into the issue of crashing with lzma though, so i have restarted that. going to put the logs up in the https://gitlab.com/ahf/tor-sponsor4-compression repo 17:11:19 <ahf> and make some spreadsheet like we did with compression algorithms 17:11:35 <ahf> maybe i'll have something for you and me to talk about tomorrow? 17:11:40 <nickm> yeah. let's do what we can with the info we have, and not block while waiting for more tests to complete? 17:11:43 <nickm> sounds great 17:11:48 <ahf> yes, agreed with that 17:12:21 <nickm> dgoulet, asn are the logical people to answer the "How is prop224 going" question ... 17:12:58 <nickm> catalyst: did you want to talk about SessionGroup=, or did I boldface it by mistake? 17:13:09 <catalyst> no, i wanted to talk about it briefly 17:13:15 <nickm> ok, let's go for it! 17:14:19 <catalyst> so there's this bug #22619 about the SessionGroup=N session isolation option being treated as invalid 17:14:45 <catalyst> the validation bug isn't hard to test, but i also discovered that we seem to have no test coverage for the actual session isolation feature it's supposed to control 17:14:54 <catalyst> s/hard to test/hard to fix/ 17:15:18 <nickm> I can believe that :( 17:15:39 <catalyst> it's quite an old bug, so maybe people don't try to use this feature very often? 17:15:48 <Yawning> I don't understand the point of that 17:16:03 <nickm> of SessionGroup? 17:16:04 <catalyst> in any case, i'm not sure that coverage testing of the functionality is worth putting in 0.3.1 17:16:06 <Yawning> and till you pointed at the bug, I didn't know that option existed 17:16:07 <Yawning> yes 17:16:26 <nickm> catalyst: agreed; it's ok to delay all of this IMO for 0.3.2 actually, since it's not an 0.3.1 regression 17:16:30 <nickm> though a fix might be nice. 17:16:43 <nickm> as for coverage, I'd say it's worth a day , but not a week? 17:16:44 <Yawning> I assume the people that use it do some placebo bullshit torrc with 3 million untested/buggy options 17:16:56 <nickm> Yawning: they don't, because the option is rejected :( 17:17:15 <Yawning> if the option doesn't even enable right, does it actually even work 17:17:40 <catalyst> well yeah, it's obviously untested 17:17:52 <nickm> the benefit of the option is that it lets you do something like say that _this_ DNSPort and _This_ SOCKSPort are associated, and can share circuits. 17:17:55 <catalyst> unless it used to work and then got broken? but there's still no current automated testing 17:18:33 <nickm> ack 17:19:16 <nickm> so my preference would be "fix it in 0.3.2.x, include tests, unless it will take more than a couple of days." how does that sound? 17:19:22 <nickm> (and is that even what you were asking? :) ) 17:19:51 <catalyst> pretty much. though i suspect that testing of the functionality will require chutney 17:20:14 <catalyst> i'll bump the ticket to 0.3.2.x 17:20:31 <nickm> tricky, and interesting. I think that some of the backend can be tested as unit-tests, like the functions that test whether two streams can share a circuit, etc... 17:20:43 <nickm> but yeah, it's hard to say if it actually works without an integration test 17:20:57 <catalyst> nickm: that's a plausible unit testing approach; i'll look into it 17:21:28 <nickm> pastly: fwiw, dgoulet is not online right now, so you'll need to ask him about KIST status when he's back :/ 17:21:49 <pastly> ack 17:22:11 <nickm> all my discussion topics are on the topics list at the top, as are the remainging topics i can see. So, anybody have any questions based on anyone else's updates? 17:22:52 <nickm> wrt 0.3.1 -- we have about 38 open tickets. dgoulet, catalyst, asn, and teor have a small number of tickets. 17:22:56 <nickm> ahf and I have a huge number of tickets open 17:23:07 <nickm> there are also 10 "new" tickets for 0.3.1 that are neither assigned nor deferred. 17:23:22 <nickm> so, I'm hoping to go through the stuff that's assigned to me... 17:23:34 <catalyst> how many of these are in an actionable state? 17:23:36 <nickm> but as for the stuff in "new" I hope more people pick things up. 17:23:48 <nickm> most, I think? 17:24:31 <nickm> depends on what 'actionable' means :) 17:25:05 <nickm> Would anybody like to take on the job of trying to get somebody attached to each of those tickets? If not I can do it... 17:25:06 <catalyst> needs_information leans towards "not-actionable" 17:25:10 <nickm> right 17:25:28 <nickm> I'm talking about the 10 tickets marked "new" in the milestone "Tor: 0.3.1.x-final" 17:26:14 <nickm> ok, I guess that's me. :/ 17:26:51 <nickm> one more thing I'll ask for help on: we all share code-review responsibility 17:26:57 <catalyst> i would kind of like to leave the "easy" tickets open for new contributors but i'll jump on them if need be 17:27:28 <nickm> sometimes, to ensure a loose FIFO, we use a keyword to mark all the reviewable tickets, and try to get those all reviewed before moving on to review new ones. 17:27:34 <nickm> the current keyword is "review-group-18". 17:27:52 <catalyst> thanks. do we document this practice somewhere? 17:27:54 <isis> hi, my internet suddenly crapped out for some reason 17:27:54 <nickm> I am not going to commit to reviewing any new code until every "review-group-18" ticket has gotten a review. :) 17:28:04 * isis reads backlog 17:28:09 <ahf> sounds very fair 17:28:09 <nickm> catalyst: I don't know! maybe on the wiki; does anybody know? 17:29:07 <nickm> review-group-18 now contains 26 needs_review tickets. Let's all allocate time to get s5tarted on it! In passing, I note that I can't review my own patches. :) 17:29:18 <catalyst> there's https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/process/TorOnTrac but wasn't there also a pad that people were writing notes about for revising that wiki page? 17:29:47 <armadev> i live (trying to keep up with all the backlogs) 17:29:48 <nickm> catalyst: I think so. anybody have that pad? 17:30:18 <nickm> I think maybe dgoulet (who is not here right now) was maintaining it. 17:31:18 <asn> hello all. i'm jetlagged but back in europe. 17:31:21 <asn> noted on the needs_review tickets 17:31:46 <catalyst> nickm: found it: http://5jp7xtmox6jyoqd5.onion/p/trac-hygiene 17:31:53 <nickm> woo 17:31:55 <nickm> ty 17:32:09 <catalyst> who wants to start updating the wiki page with that? 17:33:11 <nickm> I've made a note on the pad with both urls, I hope somebody can pick it up. 17:33:16 <nickm> if not I'll try to remember. 17:33:48 <nickm> also, if anybody doesn't have an oniongit.eu account who is participating in tor development, please get one? We're going to start testing it out for our code reviews 17:33:58 <nickm> to get one, I believe the procedure is "ask hiro" 17:34:10 <ahf> yep 17:34:13 <nickm> anything else for this weeK? 17:35:13 <nickm> ok. I'll be around a few hours more if I can be helpful with anything. Thanks, everybody! 17:35:16 <nickm> #endmeeting