16:58:54 <nickm> #startmeeting network team meeting, 23 April
16:58:54 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Apr 23 16:58:54 2018 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:58:54 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:58:58 <pastly> ehlo
16:59:19 <nickm> hi everyone
16:59:22 <dgoulet> hi
16:59:23 <nickm> pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/kNjIkulFxsI6
16:59:38 <haxxpop> hi everyone !!
16:59:56 <dmr> hi all :) mostly lurking today
17:00:00 <nickm> so: **we have  3 weeks left till the 0.3.4 freeze**
17:00:15 <ahf> pastly: nice with open sourcing the scanner!
17:00:24 <nickm> how are we doing on the 0.3.4 items on the roadmap?
17:00:43 <pastly> ahf: asn: thanks :)
17:00:44 * ahf is testing the easy one of his 0.3.4 roadmap items now
17:00:48 <nickm> everybody look what your name is listed near on the 0.3.4 list: is there anything that might take longer than 3 weeks?
17:00:53 <isabela> oi!
17:02:21 <asn> yes my name is in more tickets than i can probably handle. i will triage this week. most of them are just the result of moving triaging stuff out of 033 .
17:02:25 <dmr> pastly: cheers! *crosses fingers*
17:02:32 <asn> (im not talking about roadmap tickets)
17:02:33 <nickm> could everybody please use the new "status" column on the roadmap to note what looks happy/sad from your pov
17:02:36 <nickm> ?
17:02:42 <ahf> sure
17:04:04 <isis> grrr the pad will not connect for me
17:04:09 <asn> mikeperr1: yo around?
17:04:23 <mikeperr1> I am still juggling #25546 subtickets. I might like some dgoulet time to discuss #25883
17:04:55 <asn> mikeperr1: i marked two of the roadmap items as "good progress". particularly prop#291 and the simulator.
17:04:59 <nickm> isis: where are we with wide creates? I know you've been doing some work there...
17:05:20 <dgoulet> mikeperry: ping me anytime for this
17:05:28 <catalyst> nickm: there's a "status" column? i only see two "notes" columns
17:05:46 <asn> catalyst: maybe it's another tab?
17:05:53 <asn> catalyst: we are in the second tab "Roadmap March-Nov 2018"
17:05:53 <nickm> I'm looking at the "Roadmap March-Nov 2018" tab?
17:05:54 <ahf> catalyst: it's the roadmap march-nov 2018
17:06:03 <ahf> tab name ddos
17:06:20 <catalyst> nickm: sorry, nevermind. was looking at ticket review assignments
17:06:47 <asn> mikeperry: btw, #25668 is named "investigate 2-guard proposal" and we are definitely investigating. do you think we are good in progress terms?
17:06:56 <isis> nickm: i've got encoding and decoding functions and i need to write tests
17:07:11 <nickm> ok
17:07:27 <isis> nickm: do you know how much progress has been made on the other wide create cell tickets
17:07:30 <isis> ?
17:07:39 <nickm> basically none afaik
17:07:47 <nickm> has anybody else done any of the wide create stuff?
17:07:50 <dgoulet> nickm, isis, catalyst: the wide CREATE cell is a bit deprioritize for me as there are 4 names on that ... so apart from that, I'm still confident on my tasks.
17:07:57 <nickm> I'm afraid I've been 100% on CPU-reduction
17:08:00 <dgoulet> (that answers it for me ^ :)
17:08:27 <nickm> with a plan to _try_ to get to wide-create, but let it sleep from 0.3.4 if we need to do so in order to get everything else in.
17:08:45 <mikeperry> asn: sort of. I feel like we're still kind of undecided on a lot of things. I think we've got enough to move forward on #25870 for vanguards..
17:08:47 <dmr> where can I get a bit more context on the wide CREATE cells? a spec/roadmap/etc.?
17:09:10 <nickm> dmr: prop#249
17:09:35 <isis> geez, finally, the pad HS address works but not the clearnet one
17:09:43 <nickm> The "basic modularization preparation" item also seems not to be moving very much.
17:10:03 <dgoulet> nickm: not sure we need it afterall actually...
17:10:04 <nickm> and whether or  not the privcount blinding and encryption get in, seems really dependent on how teor4's project is going
17:10:04 <dmr> nickm: thanks!
17:10:14 <nickm> dgoulet: "it" ?
17:10:31 <ahf> isn't the basic modularization stuff a bit related to what dgoulet have started with?
17:10:34 <dgoulet> nickm: the ticket... I can re-assess after the meeting what exactly the action items there but I'm not sure there is much
17:10:34 <nickm> Those seem like the 3 that I think are most likely not to be done by schedule.
17:10:38 <ahf> being able to compile tor without some components?
17:10:46 <ahf> or is this a more planning task?
17:10:54 <dgoulet> planning task I think
17:10:56 <nickm> that could be part of it; I think we had envisioned more planning and refactoring
17:11:01 <ahf> ack
17:11:30 <dgoulet> planning happened before I started with #25610 so maybe it could be closed tbh
17:11:50 <dgoulet> (#25498 to be closed I meant)
17:12:18 <nickm> hm. I'm not so sure there -- we listed #25498 as sponsor 3, but #25494 as sponsor 8.
17:12:36 <nickm> we should see how much we can do there
17:12:39 <dgoulet> weird...
17:12:56 <ahf> odd
17:13:09 <ahf> the focus on #25494 is related to binary size as well (and thus download size)
17:13:14 <ahf> maybe that is why?
17:13:18 <dgoulet> yeah and it is the main roadmap item
17:13:36 <dgoulet> so we should probably label #25498 S8
17:13:36 <catalyst> ahf: yeah that's why #25494 makes more sense as sponsor8 to me
17:13:46 <ahf> yeah, i agree
17:13:57 <nickm> Okay. Let's consider that, but IF we do...
17:14:06 <nickm> we should check in with isabela about how this affects our planning
17:14:19 <nickm> especially for sponsor3
17:14:30 <nickm> and consider whether we want to do anything additional for #25498 under s8 other than what we already have planned
17:14:49 <nickm> (I think isabela is busy atm with blog stuff; so let's check in with her later)
17:14:56 <dgoulet> well I personally think that ticket is done, regardless of sponsor but maybe we need some texts for a report there?
17:15:01 <dgoulet> (we can check that after)
17:15:15 <ahf> remind me what s3 is?
17:15:18 <ahf> :/
17:15:31 <nickm> it's one of the NSF things
17:15:37 <nickm> it's the one with the complicated history
17:15:37 <ahf> ack
17:15:53 <nickm> next up is reviewer assignments?
17:16:15 <nickm> [Note: The tasks I marked in red are not _necessarily_ going to slip, but they currently look like they could, and we know it.]
17:16:28 <nickm> looks like everybody has <= 2
17:16:35 <isabela> (re:sponsor8 i will follow up later w/ yall)
17:16:46 <nickm> does everything look okay there? everybody good to get this done by end-of-week?
17:17:23 <ahf> mine looks fine. an older bug that wasn't done was marked as done though in the sheet
17:17:37 <nickm> which one?
17:17:59 <isis> i don't really understand how modularity is tied into s3 but that seems like a digression and also idk if i need to know
17:18:10 <nickm> For rotations, we have isis=bug-triage, community=mikeperry, coverity=nickm, CI=ahf.
17:18:18 <ahf> i readded it. the #25140
17:18:24 <ahf> nickm: ack
17:18:28 <isis> \o/ heck yeah bug triage
17:18:46 <nickm> I had some notes from doing CI last week, but they'll come up during discussion time
17:19:01 <nickm> and on to discussion time, not quite in order:
17:19:02 <ahf> i have a question on CI: i think our jenkins bots are still a bit sad, should i try to spend some time on that this week?
17:19:16 <nickm> Let's talk about that
17:19:18 <ahf> ack
17:19:30 <nickm> So, I got nearly all the jenkins builds building last week.
17:19:54 <nickm> right now the only thing that looks unhappy from "tor" in jenkins is "032-extra-arm"
17:20:20 <nickm> but that one is failing with "Timeout, server build-arm-02.torproject.org not responding" on one of the builders, so I think it's  a false positive.
17:20:27 <nickm> I think we're entering the week with Jenkins in good shape
17:20:39 <ahf> ok, cool!
17:20:48 <nickm> metrics-lib-master and stem-ci-linux are failing, but those aren't ours...
17:21:12 <ahf> yeah
17:21:34 <nickm> and the freebsd ones that are failing are failing with "packet_write_wait: connection to 81.x.x.x port 22: Broken pipe".
17:21:38 <nickm> So that's not our code either
17:21:48 <ahf> hm, i see
17:21:49 <nickm> This is a change since last week, though:
17:22:07 <nickm> all through last week, I was finding and fixing jenkins issues related to stuff that we were testing in jenkins only, and which had been broken for a bit
17:22:10 <nickm> most notably:
17:22:11 <nickm> windows
17:22:13 <nickm> 32-bit behavior
17:22:23 <nickm> "make distcheck"
17:22:36 <nickm> Is this all stuff that we  should try to get travis checking too?
17:22:54 <ahf> do cross-build of win32 with travis?
17:22:55 <nickm> where by "travis" I guess I mean "something integrated with github
17:23:32 <nickm> I think that whether we do or we don't, we need to plan to keep checking jenkins and fixing real jenkins failures.
17:23:41 <isis> i think that's what the appveyor ticket is about?
17:23:46 <nickm> either indefinitely, or until our github-integrated thing can do everything
17:23:55 <isis> #25549
17:24:19 <nickm> I'm asking because of isis's question on #25814 --
17:25:02 <nickm> Is there anything that we _don't_ want to add to travis, under the theory "jenkins already does that well enough"?
17:26:22 <catalyst> i think whenever feasible we should move stuff off of jenkins and onto stuff that has more affordances such as travis provides
17:26:56 <isis> +1
17:27:13 <nickm> Does that mean we should add "debian packages" to travis? Or keep checking those on jenkins?
17:27:45 <catalyst> we can probably build 64-bit debian packages on travis right?
17:27:59 <nickm> Not sure :)
17:28:10 <isis> plus i really like shifting the responsibility for causing/creating issues to each developer (it sucks to find out after my code is merged that there was a problem somewhere)
17:28:24 <catalyst> isis: +1
17:28:35 <ahf> wont building debian packages for debian require us to do a debootstrap from the ubuntu into a debian environment before we can build them?
17:28:40 <nickm> I think I agree, but I also think we should do two more things:
17:28:48 <nickm> - We should keep looking at jenkins failures
17:28:49 <ahf> i had the impression that we are bit limited on how much time we have on travis
17:29:15 <nickm> - We should prioritize the configurations where we tend to find bugs.
17:29:35 <nickm> plausible?
17:29:53 <nickm> ahf: I don't actually know how limited we are in the number of configurations we run
17:30:28 <catalyst> nickm: each sub-job has an independent timeout
17:30:35 <catalyst> or that's what i recall anyway
17:30:39 <catalyst> there
17:30:42 <ahf> sounds good to me. it's good the jenkins bots also writes on IRC when there is failures
17:30:51 <catalyst> there might be an aggregate timeout too, but i'm not sure
17:31:32 <nickm> ok. it seems like we have rough-ish consensus to move forward with Doing More In Travis and to keep Checking On Jenkins.
17:31:32 <catalyst> we use jenkins for continuous deployment for things that aren't core tor and it all goes to #tor-bots right?
17:31:35 <nickm> Great.
17:31:56 <ahf> catalyst: i think so, #bots-bots have a bit more activity than the ci channel
17:32:03 <ahf> err, #tor-bots
17:32:14 <nickm> next question: did anything new turn up for 033-stable?  Is there anything for us to do on that other than to keep working on bugs and wait for more bugs to be reported?
17:32:54 <mikeperry> is 033-stable LTS btw?
17:33:12 <nickm> We haven't decided what the next LTS should be
17:33:20 <ahf> i've switched my relay over to the 033 rc and haven't found anything there
17:33:32 <mikeperry> #25870 should go in to 0.3.3 I think. if we like it
17:34:10 <ahf> i might ask for some help on making a good regression test case for #25245 - it has been a bit of a pain to reproduce
17:34:12 <nickm> I think maybe no on that one -- vanguards are experimental, yeah?
17:34:31 <mikeperry> nickm: yeah but if people use them in 0.3.3, it will cause warns on relays.
17:34:58 <nickm> hm. At the least, let's see how big the patch turns out to be, and try it in 0.3.4 first.
17:35:39 <mikeperry> ok
17:36:33 <nickm> for 034-proposed, I see only 2 tickets listed: #25883 and #25895
17:36:53 <nickm> oh wait
17:36:57 <nickm> the name is 034-roadmap-proposed, right?
17:37:14 <nickm> yes, there are 6 of those.
17:37:41 <nickm> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=merge_ready&status=needs_information&status=needs_review&status=needs_revision&status=new&status=reopened&keywords=~034-roadmap-proposed&group=status&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&col=component&col=version&order=priority
17:37:46 <nickm> ^ a list of all 8
17:38:19 <nickm> Is it time to go over these and see what we can try to get done before the deadline?
17:38:31 <nickm> I think I already approved #25756
17:38:36 <nickm> and #25895 seems important
17:39:20 <asn> i doubt we can fit #20212 in. we dont have a plan yet or time to test it. :X
17:39:33 <nickm> ack
17:39:34 <ahf> i have looked a bit at windows cross compiling before and could take it, but i'm not super hardcore at the rust toolchain stuff. might need some help there
17:39:48 <ahf> for #25895
17:40:00 <nickm> ahf: thanks! it might make sense to look at that after we do/don't merge the libtool patch.
17:40:42 <ahf> yes, for sure
17:40:50 <ahf> i'll assign myself to it for now
17:43:22 <nickm> mikeperry: for #25883 we would need a sketch for a new control-port feature: right now I don't think STREAM events support any kind of exit-side streams; maybe a new controller event type is in order
17:44:15 <nickm> mikeperry: we can sketch something out some time? I'd be happy to walk though the help/tips if you want
17:44:18 <nickm> I think I know about how to do that
17:44:49 <nickm> pfew!
17:45:05 <nickm> That was a lot of stuff to look at.  I hope everybody's doing okay! :)
17:45:12 <nickm> Anything else we want to talk about here?
17:46:09 <catalyst> isis: poking rust people about the bool thing? who was going to do that? i'm not sure
17:46:26 <isis> catalyst: ah, i was going to do that, sorry
17:46:34 <mikeperry> nickm: the main thing I actually need is just a mapping from onion service stream to circ id, and then bandwidth events for those.
17:46:41 <isis> catalyst: i have an open tab with a half-written comment
17:46:46 <isis> catalyst: unless you wanted to
17:46:51 <catalyst> isis: cool, thanks!
17:47:30 <catalyst> isis: i.e. please go ahead with your comment :) sorry for ambiguity
17:47:57 <nickm> okay. Hearing no new topics come up, I'm going to call the meeting done!
17:47:59 <nickm> Thanks, everybody!
17:48:27 <ahf> o/
17:51:31 <dgoulet> nickm: might want to #endmeeting before your forget :)
17:52:05 <nickm> #endmeeting