16:59:30 <ahf> #startmeeting network team meeting, 14 october 2019
16:59:30 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Oct 14 16:59:30 2019 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:59:30 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:34 <ahf> hello everyone
16:59:45 <ahf> our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep
16:59:50 <nickm> good morning/evening/afternoon!
16:59:56 <catalyst> o/
17:00:04 <ahf> o/
17:00:19 <ahf> i think we might be few people today. asn is away and i haven't seen david around today
17:00:39 <ahf> let's start with 042 status: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/042Status
17:00:46 * catalyst thinks it might be Canadian Thanksgiving?
17:00:58 <ahf> yes, i think david said something like that last week
17:00:59 <nickm> It looks like it is!
17:01:16 <nickm> (happy Thanksgiving, dgoulet!)
17:01:33 <ahf> #32033 an #32032 looks like the same things i am working on, so i am gonna take those. they are duplicates it seems
17:01:47 <ahf> and thanks for prodding me about that in the weekend nickm. i managed to completely forget it afterwards.
17:01:54 <gaba> o/
17:02:17 <nickm> ahf: no worries :)
17:02:44 <nickm> for 042, I'm pretty happy with what I've done, and not progressing on what I haven't.
17:03:18 <nickm> For #31078, it is fine to defer it to 043 IMO, since it doesn't actually break anything.  I'm waiting there since catalyst would like to give feedback, and it isn't blocking.
17:03:38 <nickm> For #31683 and #31364, I am baffled.  I will try looking at them again  some time this week wheen I feel smart
17:03:43 * ahf has taken #32033 and #32032 now
17:03:52 <ahf> cool!
17:04:32 <nickm> ahf: you're the only one with "must" tickets right now for 042. I'd like to have all of those fixed by 1 Nov so we can start putting out release candidates.  Does that seem likely?
17:05:14 <ahf> yeah, i think it does. i think you will have #31810 this week, but you requested a test for #31091 - i am not sure how i should test that without changing a lot in transports.c
17:05:37 <ahf> it is removing a very optimistic assertion i put into it during s8 development where i tried to build some understanding of the state transitions in the transports subsystem
17:05:57 <ahf> i can test that these transitions are OK, but the fix is to remove the assertions
17:06:51 <ahf> what do you think here, nickm?
17:07:19 <nickm> I don't know the ticket in detail, but I think removing overstrict assertions sould be safe.
17:07:32 <nickm> For testing I'd have to look at the specific code
17:07:43 <ahf> okay, i will rebranch it to the new target branch and write a comment on trac and then we can take it there
17:07:52 <ahf> you are the reviewer of it i think, so you will see it when i update it
17:08:26 <nickm> ok
17:08:29 <ahf> okay, let's have a look at our roadmap: https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/boards
17:08:42 <ahf> i am not able to login to dip right now and it gave 500 errors randomly a few minutes before the meeting
17:08:55 <ahf> of course quite poor timing
17:08:56 <nickm> It's working for me...
17:09:05 <ahf> you are already logged in?
17:09:08 <nickm> yeah.
17:09:15 <nickm> and hm, not all the columns will load
17:09:21 <nickm> and now it's 500 again :)
17:10:05 <ahf> oh, i got to the 2 step auth code now
17:10:14 <nickm> let's defer roadmap this week, and ask the dip admins to figure out how to avoid this?
17:10:27 <ahf> yeah, it is me and hiro, gonna look at it after the meeting
17:10:30 <nickm> ok
17:10:39 <ahf> i will highlight people on irc and ask people to look at it during the week
17:10:56 <ahf> i guess we haven't had reviewer assignment yet
17:10:59 <ahf> so not much there to review
17:11:28 <ahf> let's move to discussions?
17:11:37 <nickm> ok
17:11:49 <nickm> (is anybody here besides ahf, catalyst, nickm, gaba?)
17:11:50 <hiro> ahf: +1
17:11:52 <ahf> * We should have more people helping out with GSoD tickets from swati. Anybody up for co-mentoring together with Catalyst?
17:12:01 <ahf> nickm: yeah, we seem so few today
17:12:14 <gaba> asn is afk this week
17:12:29 <catalyst> nickm: do you have time to help with the GSoD review?
17:12:31 <gaba> (als next week)
17:12:44 <ahf> mikeperry: are you around?
17:13:01 <nickm> catalyst: I can help, sure.  I would lean towards _not_ splitting this one too much, though, and trying to get better division on the next one.
17:13:13 <nickm> Otherwise swati blocks and is unable to work, yeah?
17:13:26 <gaba> +1 to not splitting
17:13:29 <catalyst> nickm: ok let's follow up on email?
17:13:35 <nickm> ok
17:13:57 <nickm> catalyst: will you  send the email or should I?
17:14:16 <gaba> nickm: there is a mail thread already
17:14:18 <mikeperry> ahf: yah
17:14:50 <ahf> mikeperry: cool!
17:15:01 <catalyst> nickm: i already sent an email earlier today
17:15:14 <nickm> ah, just saw. Thanks!
17:15:41 <mikeperry> I am still likely to be doing Firefox stuff this week; I have to check with GeKo about Featurte review and follow up on remaining networking review questions on trac
17:15:50 <ahf> cool!
17:16:14 <ahf> okay, so thanks to everyone who helped with the september network team report. nick asked if we could have a pad available that one can update during the week. we now have that as:
17:16:19 <ahf> * Please update https://pad.riseup.net/p/october-2019-tor-netteam for your October work so we can send out a summary once October is over.
17:16:36 <ahf> i would be very happy if people can have it in mind when they do something that is newsworthy so we can tell the rest of the org about the cool things that are happening :-)
17:16:47 <ahf> this was more of an announcement i guess than a discussion.
17:17:12 <ahf> any questions there? :-)
17:17:42 <ahf> ook
17:18:03 <ahf> so, i see a comment to the opting-in to faster reviews and merges policy that is in discussion with target end of discussion date of tomorrow (15/10)
17:18:34 <nickm> I think "opting-in" is waiting for a revision.  Am I write?
17:18:35 <ahf> i think the stuff that is pending on me is not related to this proposal? the thing that i am missing is related to the structure of a PR - not the review/merge speed-up proposal?
17:18:52 <ahf> i think so too, but from teor, no?
17:18:53 <catalyst> ahf: oh? i might be confused then, sorry
17:18:58 <nickm> anyways, there are no +1s on opting-in, so it looks unlikely to pass
17:19:16 <nickm> ahf: I think you're right.
17:19:27 <ahf> catalyst: the one was the one where we had the big discussion particularly around the size of PR's
17:19:33 <catalyst> ahf: ah
17:19:40 <ahf> but this one is about how we distribute worklod of merges and reviews out more nicely over the week
17:19:45 <ahf> (iirc)
17:19:57 * catalyst is finding all of this difficult to keep track of
17:20:17 <nickm> This is the one with the subject line "Proposed Policy: Opting-in to faster reviews and merge"
17:20:21 <nickm> sent by teor on 26 Sep
17:20:38 <ahf> so, i guess on next monday we are going to ... remove it from the list and nothing will happen until the revision comes out and we vote on it?
17:20:42 <nickm> There is also "Draft merge policy for discussion and vote" sent by nickm on 2 Oct.
17:20:53 <nickm> ahf: yup.
17:21:24 <nickm> The "Draft Merge policy" is the one about removing the 3-parson rule.
17:21:28 <ahf> good, ok, then i think i got that part of the metaproposal
17:21:39 <nickm> 3-person
17:22:07 <ahf> i see no help with in the list, so unless anybody have anything else, then this will be the shortest network team meeting i've hosted so far
17:23:27 <ahf> okay then
17:23:32 <ahf> i am gonna end the meeting :-)
17:23:35 <nickm> woot
17:23:36 <ahf> #endmeeting