23:01:39 <nickm> #startmeeting network team meeting, 23 April 2019 23:01:39 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Apr 23 23:01:39 2019 UTC. The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 23:01:39 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 23:01:43 <nickm> how goes? 23:01:44 <catalyst> hi 23:01:50 <nickm> hi catalyst! 23:01:53 <nickm> anybody else around? 23:01:59 <mikeperry> hi 23:02:21 <nickm> hi mikeperry ! 23:02:32 <nickm> dgoulet is not on channel; I've pinged him on #tor-dev 23:02:36 <nickm> we expecting anybody else? 23:03:07 <teor> ahf has gone to sleep, asn may also be sleeping 23:03:12 * meejah lurks 23:03:28 <nickm> I think it's 0100/0200 for them :) 23:03:43 <nickm> as usual our pad is https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep 23:04:42 <nickm> going down the standard items -- there are no currently unaddressed tickets on the CI list. 23:05:05 <nickm> ahf suggests that #29930 doesn't hve to be 040-must, and I concur 23:05:13 <teor> I agree 23:05:39 <nickm> in theory we should look at the kanban now, but it isn't loading for me. Can anybody else see it? 23:06:13 <gaba> hiro sent me a workaround about the board 23:06:25 <gaba> click an 'all boards' and then in the board... then it loads 23:06:27 <nickm> oh? 23:06:30 <gaba> it seems it is the bug with the new wekan 23:06:34 <gaba> new version 23:06:52 <gaba> 'all boards' is a link at the top 23:07:24 <nickm> wow 23:07:29 <nickm> software is great :) 23:07:33 <teor> yeah, it works 23:07:56 <nickm> we have a _lot_ of things in backlog right now 23:08:07 <nickm> gaba: should we talk about prioritizing? 23:08:22 <gaba> ok 23:08:33 <gaba> the backlog should be sorted out by priority 23:08:45 <gaba> if it is not then we should sort it out by priority 23:09:01 <gaba> mmm, actually. nickm: do you want to talk about it now? 23:09:04 <nickm> teor: when do you disappear? 23:09:15 <nickm> gaba: yes, let's 23:09:19 <gaba> ok 23:09:50 <teor> nickm: at the end of today, in ~8 hours time 23:09:53 <gaba> the onion services tickets are still not integrated into the backlog. asn and dgoulet will look at the priorities for it and then we integrate them (right now they are in its own column) 23:10:12 <nickm> teor: cool 23:10:21 <teor> gaba, nickm: I have sorted my backlog tickets by priority 23:10:28 <gaba> there are a lot of tickets that were "planned" for march/april that are in the backlog. 23:10:31 <gaba> nice teor. thanks 23:10:34 <nickm> gaba: IIUC that sponsor has a much later due date than the other stuff... 23:10:41 <gaba> yes 23:10:49 <gaba> the next one ending is s19 at the end of may 23:11:20 <mikeperry> is the canonical backlog we are supposed to sort in the kanban? my workflow would be faster if I could just update priorty fields on trac 23:11:29 <mikeperry> for wtf-pad tickets, at least 23:11:36 <nickm> teor: looking at my backlog for S19, the chutney-PT stuff seems high priority. I'd like to know your thoughts on how you think I should procede there, so that when I try to do it I have the benefit of your suggestions 23:11:57 <gaba> mikeperry: how do you sort it out in trac? 23:12:30 <mikeperry> gaba: this query https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=!closed&keywords=~wtf-pad&order=priority 23:12:31 <nickm> teor: is chat or email most convenient there? 23:12:32 <catalyst> mikeperry: i find that trac isn't fine-grained enough to really prioritize things 23:12:51 <teor> mikeperry: I agree. I would rather use trac and ignore the kanban. The kanban does not update automatically, so it gets out of sync. 23:13:01 <mikeperry> catalyst: it depends. I like to group by tag or topic and then priortize 23:13:13 <teor> nickm: let's talk in tor-dev? 23:13:15 <mikeperry> otherwise there's too many other high priorty things in the way I don't care about 23:13:17 <nickm> one problem with the trac approach is that it has so darn much 23:13:29 <nickm> and it doesn't restrict itself to the roadmapped stuff 23:13:36 <gaba> yes, we need a subset of tickets for the team, that are the onews being worked on 23:13:43 <teor> My best experience with trac is mikeperry's grouping then prioritising method 23:13:44 <mikeperry> nickm: yes this is why tags, milestones, and other filters on queries ar essential 23:13:54 <gaba> i agree that integration trac/kanban would be the best but we do not have it right now 23:14:12 <teor> gaba: no, I just want to use trac, sorry 23:14:13 <nickm> teor: sure. I will try to be around after but I need to do bedtime for the kid tonight, so I may not have a lot of time 23:14:22 <teor> nickm: email also works 23:14:43 <nickm> ok. if we run out of time, email me what you think some time in (your) today? 23:15:22 <teor> gaba: "Having too many tickets on the one page" is a process failure. "Having different statuses in different tools" is another. 23:15:37 <teor> I really do think we can use trac better, so we avoid both these issues. 23:16:09 <teor> nickm: sure, I haven't read your updates on the sponsor 19 tickets yet 23:16:22 <nickm> so here's a problem about the "different statuses" that makes it harder to use trac as "source of truth". 23:16:31 <nickm> Maybe we can come up with a solution 23:16:50 <nickm> today gaba and I tried to figure out which of the roadmapped items we had done and which we did not have done 23:16:56 <nickm> for a couple of sponsors 23:17:19 <nickm> a lot of the "SponsorX-must" items had gotten that label after Brussels, based on one person's judgment. 23:17:39 <nickm> and so it's hard to figure out which items of that kind are actually our contracted deliverables 23:17:46 <nickm> and which are just things somebody found to be really important 23:18:26 <teor> We also have a similar problem with the release milestones 23:18:51 <nickm> Whatever we use as our sponsor-tracking roadmap, maybe it needs not be world-writable. 23:19:08 <nickm> Or maybe it needs to have a propose-change/actual-change process 23:19:15 <mikeperry> the kanban will have these miscategorization issues too, if we all have to update it... at least trac has the changelog updates of these things emailed, archived, searchable, etc 23:19:21 <teor> +1 23:19:34 <gaba> trac is where the community and everybody brings issues/bugs to. we need a place where we can filter and sort out more specifically that is related with the sponsor work that the team decides to do. 23:19:51 <teor> gaba: I don't think that's a solution 23:20:17 <teor> Now we have two places that are out of sync 23:20:34 <nickm> FWIW, I really don't like it how every time we have a procedural "and now we update X to match Y" thing, we need to have a discussion about whether to have X and/or Y 23:20:37 <mikeperry> don't get me wrong, I like the idea of kanbans; I will be proposing using one on Friday in the scalability meetings.. but it's going to be used differently; it can't ever replace trac. I think it has to have much less granularity than trac, inherently 23:20:56 <nickm> Maybe we should have a rule about separating meta-discussion and non-meta-discussion? 23:21:46 <teor> nickm: I think you're right. We can't change our use of trac and kanban in this meeting. Let's talk about it in July at the in-person meeting? 23:21:51 <nickm> +1 23:21:56 <nickm> +lots in fact 23:22:12 <gaba> +1 23:22:21 <nickm> Looking at my own issues for the kanban ... #29210 is still in progress; I'm blocked on catalyst finshing their review 23:23:05 <nickm> for my backlog items, I want to take on #29267 next, based on advice from teor 23:23:15 <catalyst> nickm: was in the middle of writing up a comment on that :) 23:23:29 <nickm> I can't to #28878 until #29732 is reviewed 23:23:32 <nickm> catalyst: great! 23:23:48 <nickm> #29283 and #29263 are less important than #29267 imo 23:23:52 <teor> #agreed We will use the kanban and trac until the July meeting. Then we will talk about it in July at the in-person meeting. 23:25:38 <nickm> teor: I also want to talk at some point about what I can do for privcount while you're away 23:26:09 <mikeperry> the kanban is still not lading for me 23:26:20 <nickm> did you try the workaround above? 23:26:23 <mikeperry> loading either. maybe that is non-meta 23:26:30 <gaba> mikeperry: https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/issues/3132#issuecomment-485948463 23:26:43 <nickm> (click on "all boards"; then click on the roadmap) 23:27:35 <teor> nickm: ok, we have a lot to talk about. Let's try to start handovers earlier next time. 23:28:16 <nickm> shall we move on to the next item? 23:28:35 <mikeperry> I am fryustrated to have to update two places when I work on a ticket that takes less time than to update either 23:28:54 <teor> mikeperry: we're going to talk about that at the July meeting. 23:29:11 <nickm> Indeed, let's talk about it then? 23:29:13 <mikeperry> that's nice. I still prefer to only use one of these systems 23:29:18 <mikeperry> until then 23:29:28 <nickm> It is also frusterating to talk about this every single time we have a meeting 23:29:57 <nickm> Did the page load for you after you tried the workaround? 23:30:17 <teor> mikeperry, nickm: I understand and share your frustration, but we need to cover other things in this meeting. If it's urgent, let's do it by email on the network-team list? 23:30:36 <mikeperry> yes.. I havce filtered on my sponsor.. I have a lot of data entry to do apparently.. we created like 4 small subtickets of #28683 last week 23:30:53 <mikeperry> it's frustrating to have to do all that when these items are small.. maybe I should merge my tickets first? 23:31:08 <mikeperry> #28634 23:31:10 <nickm> we don't need a kanban item for every ticket 23:31:21 <nickm> if that's in-progress, just set it to "in progress" 23:31:54 <mikeperry> (by merge I mean combine) 23:32:05 <nickm> can we go on to reviews? 23:32:47 <teor> I have just updated the list of stalled reviews on the pad 23:33:08 <teor> (I will turn it into a trac wiki page eventually, so it updates automatically) 23:33:40 <teor> catalyst, mikeperry: do you need help with your old reviews? 23:34:07 <mikeperry> if they are uent, yes. I need to task switch to tor-performance meeting stuff tomorrow 23:34:12 <mikeperry> *urgent 23:34:23 <nickm> The expectation is that we work on reviews the same week we get them 23:34:36 <nickm> IIUC 23:35:14 <teor> mikeperry: can you do all your reviews this week? 23:35:19 <catalyst> teor: #27130 should probably be needs_information or needs_revision because there are tricky things, but i haven't had time to comment and it didn't seem urgent 23:35:20 <mikeperry> no 23:35:34 <nickm> catalyst: ok, please pass it over to me or mark it needs_information? 23:35:40 <gaba> mikeperry: can you expand your no? 23:36:32 <mikeperry> no, I don't have time to get through all of those reviews; I need to task switch to tor-performance meeting stuff tomorrow 23:36:49 <nickm> Do you need help with the tor-performance stuff? 23:36:49 <mikeperry> as it says on the pad, I want to write up a wiki page of the experiments we discussed for the meeting on Friday 23:36:52 <mikeperry> and work on other things 23:36:53 <catalyst> teor: also #29732 could go to someone else 23:37:44 <nickm> mikeperry: am I being naive when I choose to review your code the same week that I get assigned the review? 23:37:47 <nickm> Am I being a chump? 23:38:18 <catalyst> nickm: #27130 reassigned to your review 23:38:21 <nickm> sorry, that was unkind 23:38:22 <mikeperry> I try to do reviews that are coming in an upcoming release soon first 23:38:35 <nickm> mikeperry: But please understand: everybody's workflow depends on their code getting reviewed and merged 23:38:36 <gaba> mikeperry: maybe we can drop roadmap work for this week and do the reviews? 23:38:48 <nickm> the ability for us to put Tor out depends on all reviews happening in a timely way 23:38:53 <nickm> We are trying to share this work as a team 23:39:13 <mikeperry> I also got to the end of the week and realized I had to choose between self-performance review, booking travel, code review, my temportary bug triage role, vanguards issues, and some other things 23:39:30 <nickm> If you put this work no to all the other people, then those people have less time to help you with stuff that you do evaluate as important 23:39:42 <mikeperry> I dropped several of those things. I didn't expect the self-performance review to take so long; I chose bug triage and that, though 23:40:03 <catalyst> hey folks this sounds like classic overwork; could we please not try to assign blame? 23:40:12 <catalyst> overwork from process issues, that is 23:40:18 <nickm> sorry, I am having a hard time today 23:40:58 <nickm> gaba: could you run the meeting for a few minutes? 23:41:01 <ahf> hey o/ - reading backlog 23:41:04 <gaba> ok 23:41:39 <gaba> so, reviews from mike, let's talk about it later so we continue 23:41:59 <gaba> sorry that you are feeling overwhelmed with all the stuff 23:42:19 <teor> it has happened to all of us. It is not anyone's fault. 23:42:25 * gaba trying to see which part of the meeting is next 23:42:28 <gaba> yep 23:43:06 <teor> We are here to help you, but we need to know what you need help with. 23:43:13 <gaba> review assignmetns for this week 23:43:33 <gaba> anybody else need to drop some reviews this week? or are peole ok with their reviews 23:43:42 <gaba> any blocker from reviews from last week? 23:44:11 * catalyst could use someone else to take review of #29732 23:44:22 <teor> asn and dgoulet aren't here, so let's just leave the reviewer for #29732 blank, and shift it to next week? 23:44:35 <ahf> i only have 2 and one is a shellcheck one, so i could take one more if that helps anybody 23:44:40 <gaba> ok 23:44:47 <gaba> ahf: can you take #29732 ? 23:45:08 <ahf> yes 23:45:11 <ahf> assigning it to me 23:45:12 <gaba> thanks 23:45:21 <teor> I didn't have any review capacity this week, because I had 4 peer feedbacks. I know that increases the load on the rest of the team, and I am sorry about that. 23:45:34 <catalyst> ahf: thanks! 23:45:45 <ahf> np! 23:45:58 <gaba> mikeperry: if you have an idea which ones you can't do please bring them to dgoulet and asn tomorrow 23:46:05 <nickm> I'm also happy to take on what reviews I can; I'm done with my reviews for the week, and can pick up stuff, so long as I didn't write it. 23:46:12 <gaba> next topic is rotation updates. 23:46:37 <nickm> I'm bug triage this week; what's the status, mike? 23:47:00 * ahf is CI+coverity and i've seen there was a small new coverity CID opened today/yesterday 23:47:20 <ahf> teor: very nice description on the meeting pad for the handover btw, thank you for doing that 23:47:27 <mikeperry> gaba: ok, I can do that by EOD tomorrow (depending on state of experiments wiki page) 23:47:34 <teor> ahf: I hope it isn't too much info. 23:47:54 <mikeperry> gaba: (by which I mean I'll work on the wiki page tomorrow, and let you know how it looks and take a guess at how many reviews I can do 23:48:00 <ahf> teor: i think it's good, gives a much better overview than i've felt i had before 23:48:07 <mikeperry> gab: on Thursday 23:48:18 <gaba> thanks mike 23:48:40 <gaba> mikeperry: do you have any status on the bug triage from last week? 23:48:47 <gaba> there is a lot of comments int he pad about it 23:49:04 <mikeperry> gaba: yeah it's in the pad 23:49:27 <gaba> ok, is that enough nick for this week? 23:49:42 <nickm> nick? 23:49:46 <mikeperry> I mean I feel like this role transition is forcing us to do role-knowledge-transfer each weeek.. I leanred that I wasn't sure what our current preffered support page is 23:49:50 <gaba> and about CI is from teor to ahf 23:49:53 <mikeperry> I guessed tor.stackexchange.com 23:49:59 <mikeperry> and that is noted on the pad 23:50:03 <mikeperry> among othere things 23:50:06 <nickm> I think we don't have a great one. We could ask the community team what they recommend 23:50:15 <gaba> yes, it seems there is always a learning :) 23:51:04 <gaba> next is 0..0 status 23:51:18 <gaba> 0.4 23:51:39 <gaba> mm, did I miss coverty? 23:51:55 <ahf> coverity and CI is same 23:52:00 <gaba> ohh, hehe 23:52:01 <gaba> ok 23:52:03 <ahf> :-) 23:52:14 <gaba> same person 23:52:15 <gaba> nice 23:52:16 <nickm> ahf: ping me tomorrow about coverity status ? I have ideas about the newer coverity issue. 23:52:23 <nickm> The other old coverity issues are waiting for code review 23:52:36 <ahf> hey, would anybody think it would be OK if i spend some time this week trying to do a thing where i create a ticket automatically on trac when i see appveyor, travis or jenkins fail? 23:52:45 <gaba> everybody ok about what needs to be removed from 0.4.0 23:52:52 <nickm> ahf: how do you mean? 23:52:55 <ahf> nickm: i will, there was a new item yesterday too 23:52:56 <gaba> +1 ahf, that seems good 23:52:56 <teor> mikeperry: I have been trying to make transitions easier by creating wiki pages for each role. But I can only do one wiki page every week or two. 23:53:12 <ahf> nickm: like pull info in a cron from appveyor/travis/jenkins and create a ticket once one of them goes red 23:53:15 <catalyst> ahf: that sounds like a great idea! as long as it doesn't make too much noise on transient failures 23:53:15 <teor> mikeperry: let's talk about roles on the network-team list, or at the July meeting? 23:53:27 <ahf> catalyst: agreed 23:53:44 <gaba> july meeting +1 23:53:48 <catalyst> ahf: or maybe that will be a reason for us to shut up or fix the nondeterministically failing tests? 23:54:01 <mikeperry> teor: ok 23:54:09 <ahf> catalyst: hah, maybe :-S let's brainstorm a bit about this over the weekend, i think you will have some good feedback for this 23:54:59 <teor> ahf, catalyst: I tried creating a ticket or ticket comment every time I saw a transient CI failure. There should be 1-2 per week right now. A few weeks ago it was one daily. 23:55:00 <catalyst> ahf: sure, i'd be happy to talk more about it later (though why the weekend?) 23:55:13 <ahf> teor: yeah, i actually think this is a good idea 23:55:22 <ahf> catalyst: err, sorry, i'm very tired. i meant over the week :-S 23:55:35 <nickm> treating intermittent failures as bugs was really helpful 23:55:54 <nickm> we tag them with "tor-ci", I think? So we don't accidentally re-create? 23:56:03 * gaba needs to run to get kid from school... 23:56:16 <nickm> gaba: see you tomorrow! Say hi to the kid! 23:56:29 <ahf> good idea with a keyword also for handover 23:57:10 <teor> nickm, ahf: tor-ci-fail 23:57:13 <nickm> #action talk to community team about what to say to people who put support requests on trac 23:57:17 <nickm> teor: thanks 23:57:32 <ahf> teor: ack 23:57:34 <teor> tor-ci has been used for every CI feature and ticket, so it doesn't help in queries 23:58:28 <teor> #action talk about roles and role transitions at the July meeting (or on the network team list) 23:59:01 <nickm> looks like we talked about reviews 23:59:12 <nickm> teor makes a good point about splitting up the pad 23:59:38 <nickm> I think that's somethign we could do via trial-and-error -- would everybody be okay with me just trying to do it for next week, and we see how it works? 23:59:44 <teor> +1 00:00:32 <nickm> Since teor is about to go away, let's use the rest of this meeting for their most important handover stuff. 00:00:51 <nickm> teor: (when are you planning to be back? My apologies; I have bad memory for that stuff) 00:00:52 <ahf> nod 00:01:10 <teor> May 21 00:01:13 <nickm> ack 00:01:40 <ahf> teor: have a very nice leave! hope you can relax and re-charge all the batteries :-) 00:01:45 <teor> Thanks! 00:01:57 <nickm> yeah; I hope you have a great time and many awesome days 00:02:27 <teor> Here are my high priority things: 00:02:40 <teor> I talked with juga about blocking sbws merges until I get back. Because we really need a stable sbws, now it is deployed on 1-2 directory authorities. 00:03:01 <teor> I can't see any other way to do a handover and make it work right now. 00:03:20 <nickm> Is it "stable enough for now"? 00:03:23 <nickm> what's the status? 00:03:33 <teor> Yes, it is stable and functional. 00:03:56 <teor> We need to improve the number of measured relays before we deploy to a 3rd authority. 00:03:59 <teor> But that is delicate work. 00:04:04 <nickm> proposal: let's try to find a couple of people to work on sbws stuff, but not merge unless emergencies come up. 00:04:09 <teor> +1 00:04:24 <nickm> #action let's try to find a couple of people to work on sbws stuff, but not merge unless emergencies come up. 00:04:42 <teor> I don't think adding more load to the team is a good idea right now, so our best option is slowing sbws and other non-funded work. 00:05:42 <teor> Next item 00:05:45 <teor> Who will do urgent CI backports? 00:06:02 <teor> I think that's nickm? 00:06:03 <teor> We can just block other backports until I get back. 00:06:07 <nickm> As in, "0.2.9 CI is broken, we must backport?" 00:06:11 <teor> Yes. 00:06:29 <teor> Which should only happen if Travis changes. 00:06:34 <nickm> I think that's me, though I would also consider not backporting anything but critical security issues 00:06:49 <teor> I agree 00:07:06 <teor> 0.3.5 and later are affected by the stem failures, if we fix the tor_mlockall() bug, we should backport that to 0.3.5 00:07:31 <nickm> ack 00:07:34 <teor> But maybe we should test it first, so that might mean disabling stem in 0.3.5 and 0.4.0? 00:08:45 <nickm> I think it will depend on what the issue turns out to be. 00:08:52 <teor> Fair enough 00:09:03 <nickm> I'll try to muddle through? 00:09:10 <teor> As we all do 00:09:25 <nickm> As I told Roger once, the cost of delegating to others is that they will not do it the same way as you would. :) 00:09:34 <teor> I think you'll be better at mlockall() than I will be 00:09:37 <teor> Indeed. And that's ok. 00:09:59 <teor> I don't want to do reviews or rotations until the week of 27 May, because 21 May is a short week filled with backlog. 00:10:14 <nickm> makes sense 00:10:23 <teor> And that's about it, apart from PrivCount. Which I think nickm and I should talk about in tor-dev. 00:10:28 <nickm> ok 00:11:34 <teor> Do we have anything else to talk about? It's 10 minutes past the hour. 00:11:56 <nickm> It looks like there are no other discussion topics, other than juga's questions. I'll try to answer them if you don't get to them before you go? 00:13:00 <nickm> hearing no other topics? 00:13:23 * ahf is good 00:13:23 <nickm> thanks, everybody! It's stressful times, but we're awesome programmers and we'll make it through together. 00:13:30 <ahf> o/ 00:13:33 <nickm> There's nobody else I'd rather be working with 00:13:36 <nickm> #endmeeting