23:00:31 <gaba> #startmeeting Sponsor 31, October 22nd 2019
23:00:31 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Oct 22 23:00:31 2019 UTC.  The chair is gaba. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
23:00:31 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
23:00:35 <gaba> the pad is here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IRjuGtQkWNKZLc7qskDb
23:00:42 <gaba> hi catalyst
23:00:47 <nickm> hihi!
23:00:47 <gaba> do we have nickm and teor in the room?
23:00:51 <gaba> hi!
23:01:48 <gaba> There is a little over a month to close this sponsor. We will have the next meeting in 2 weeks. I added a few things to the agenda, related to the work that is happening now and in the next two weeks.
23:01:51 <nickm> teor was online not too long ago...
23:02:13 <gaba> do people have anything else to add to the agenda?
23:02:32 <teor> Sorry, my time it out of sync?
23:02:47 <gaba> ok
23:03:21 <gaba> I assume that people will add anything to the agenda if you have anything else to talk
23:03:44 <gaba> first let's check on the 3 areas that people were coordinating/leading/working on :)
23:04:04 <gaba> any update?
23:05:03 <nickm> on documentation, i've been working ot improve the state of our doxygen stuff, and bring doc/HACKING/design up-to-date.  I think some stuff will move between them.
23:05:06 <nickm> *to
23:05:26 <teor> catalyst: around?
23:05:37 <teor> are we going to start meetbot?
23:05:44 <gaba> <-- already started it
23:05:45 <catalyst> nickm: i made some children of #29215; do you want to take #32211 or similar?
23:06:02 <nickm> Sure, assign it to me?
23:06:29 <nickm> I'm hoping that doc/HACKING/design is a reasonable place to put that
23:06:58 <gaba> ok
23:07:05 <catalyst> yeah i'm not quite sure about what kind of naming scheme to use for the "target architecture" stuff
23:07:43 <nickm> I've given up for now on finding the best possible naming/organization for this, and trying to just get it all down somewhere. :)
23:07:52 <nickm> I figure this stuff is easy to move around once it's written
23:07:55 <catalyst> true, we can rearrange it later
23:08:04 <nickm> and "poorly organized" is better than "not written down"
23:08:27 <catalyst> up to a point, in my experience
23:08:33 <nickm> and for text, "poorly organized content" is maybe still better than "a good outline with no content in it"
23:08:36 <gaba> that is about documentation. So do you both think this will be done in the next 2 weeks?
23:08:50 <nickm> catalyst: true
23:09:05 <catalyst> what's the end date for sponsor31?
23:09:12 <gaba> november 30th catalyst
23:09:12 <nickm> end-of-november.
23:09:35 <nickm> I think that if we both write stuff this week and next, we can get enough done so that everything else we do on this deliverable is good-to-have.
23:09:46 <gaba> sounds good
23:10:01 <nickm> I think we _should_ work on all our remaining deliverables up to end-of-nov; they are structured to be improvable.
23:10:07 <nickm> catalyst: does that sound right to you too?
23:10:26 <catalyst> nickm: sure
23:10:41 <nickm> catalyst: what part/parts are you planning to write first?
23:11:18 <catalyst> was going to start with #32206
23:11:29 <nickm> sounds great.
23:11:52 <nickm> I am excited about your vision there :)
23:12:14 <catalyst> thanks :)
23:12:15 <gaba> there is quite a bit of documentation in the 'must-tickets' but I assume their estimation is low
23:12:18 <gaba> 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=~s31-docs&sponsor=%5ESponsor31-must&col=id&col=summary&col=keywords&col=status&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&order=priority
23:12:23 <gaba> :)
23:12:55 <gaba> ok, it seems we are fine with documentation
23:13:05 <gaba> what about 'Modularization to do in 0.4.3' ?
23:13:47 <nickm> I'm moving on config refactor again; teor has started on relay-code modularization
23:14:23 <nickm> I estimate I've got another week or so till other people can modularize configuration objects.
23:14:27 <teor> We merged #32123, so we have a minimal --disable-module-relay
23:14:41 <nickm> Right. It doesn't actually remove any code yet; that's the next steps.
23:15:24 <teor> it removes authmode.c
23:16:20 <nickm> ah, true.
23:16:23 <teor> It doesn't remove any options yet, and neither did --disable-module-dirauth
23:16:24 <nickm> sorry there
23:16:47 <teor> We have #32139 to remove all the options, but that depends on the config.c refactor
23:17:01 <teor> So I want to open a ticket to remove:
23:17:17 <teor> (well, add specific config code to disable)
23:17:28 <teor> dirauth: AuthoritativeDirectory
23:17:42 <teor> relay: DirPort, DirCache, ORPort
23:18:06 <teor> Have I missed any options? Is DirCache strictly necessary? Should I set ClientOnly to 1 ?
23:18:37 <nickm> I think setting ClientOnly to 1 is reasonable.  Is that ticket a subticket of #32139 ?
23:18:39 <teor> That is, have I missed any options that let you run a dirauth or relay/dircache
23:18:48 <nickm> I don't think there are other options; I'll look.
23:19:05 <teor> I was going to make it a subticket of #31851
23:19:54 <teor> It is now #32213
23:20:00 <nickm> ok
23:20:07 <nickm> ah, I understand the relationship between those tickets now
23:20:35 <teor> Ideally, we revert #32213 when we have a better way of disabling all the options
23:20:58 <gaba> will we have time to "modularize configuration objects" in one week?
23:21:15 <nickm> we don't have to.
23:21:34 <nickm> Anything we can do on that is extra; the configuration modularization itself is enough to help us down the road.
23:22:00 <gaba> ok
23:22:08 <teor> It would be nice to implement at least one example, so we know it works
23:22:13 <nickm> agreed.
23:22:38 <nickm> teor: how do you want to proceed on relay modularization after #32213 ?
23:23:26 <nickm> We talked about making lists of things to disable/dependencies to cut, and taking them on one by one.
23:23:31 <teor> I think we can do #32162 and #32163 independently, we should also try to pick other files to disable
23:24:00 <teor> I would be happy if anyone on the team wanted to pick a file and disable it
23:24:26 <teor> But perhaps we should make a list in order of "easy to disable, as far as we can tell" ?
23:24:26 <nickm> It might be convenient in some cases to do this in some way other than one file at a time.
23:24:40 <nickm> yeah.  Do you think you can draft a list like that?
23:24:55 <teor> Sure, I think "one lump of code at a time" is a reasonable strategy
23:24:58 <nickm> Also, we want to not only disable, but to "modularize" -- we want to make the boundaries more clear between this code as we do it.
23:25:41 <teor> Part of that process is code movement into directories and files
23:25:56 <nickm> also, Should there be a new parent ticket for #32163 for "improve modularization of directory authority code"?
23:26:05 <nickm> It seems like it only sorta belongs under #31851
23:26:15 <nickm> and like there are other dependencies to cut for the directory authority modularization
23:26:38 <nickm> I can make those tickets if you like
23:27:03 <teor> If you want to split #32163, #32139, and #32213, feel free. But I wonder if it is easier to track these things in the same place.
23:27:37 <nickm> if you think it is, it doesn't hurt to keep them all under #31851.
23:28:00 <gaba> the third area is "Discussion on new C style. - nickm coordinating" . How are we doing with this one?
23:28:09 <nickm> teor: Do you want to try to draft a list of code-chunks that we could disable, or should I do the first draft, or what?
23:28:21 <nickm> gaba: I've sent out the survey and gotten replies from everybody but asn, who is out.
23:28:22 <teor> I think it's fine that way. I want to be able to see all the dependencies. If it gets too big, we can split.
23:28:36 <gaba> ok
23:28:37 <teor> nickm: I can draft the list. But I think you might know the code better?
23:29:02 <nickm> either way is okay with me; I could do it, but i don't want to grab stuff if you'd rather.
23:29:08 <nickm> I won't have time to do it till tomorrow at the earliest.
23:29:23 <teor> I'll try today, and see how I go.
23:29:23 <nickm> gaba: when asn is back, I'll hopefully get a reply from him too, and then crunch some numbers and see where we have consensus.
23:29:28 <gaba> sounds good
23:29:37 <nickm> gaba: in parallel, I'm playing with a couple of c code formatting tools to see which we should standardize on.
23:29:51 <gaba> awesome
23:30:09 <nickm> gaba: right now the leaders are (in no order) clang-format, uncrustify, and astyle.
23:30:28 <gaba> ok, let's add that to the notes
23:31:57 <gaba> The last topic that I added is the board. I updated it looking at what I thought you were working on. Can you take a look and see what you are working on is up to date and what the next 2 weeks will be (column 'next') is up to date: https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/-/boards?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Sponsor%2031
23:33:25 <nickm> there are two instances of #29215 ?
23:33:48 <gaba> oops, maybe
23:34:07 <nickm> there's nothign for improving tor-guts afaict?
23:34:45 * gaba closed one
23:34:58 <nickm> these tasks do not really correspond well to what I need to do to get my work done.
23:35:13 <teor> nickm: I wrote up the relay modularisation we discussed at: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/31851#comment:9
23:35:26 <nickm> great
23:35:27 <teor> Can you check it when you get time?
23:36:10 <nickm> Yes; I'll try to get to it tomorrow.
23:36:27 <nickm> I expect to be lightly impeded tomorrow by a doctors appointment, but I should be okay for most of the day
23:36:33 <teor> gaba: I put #30901 on the backlog, but it got moved back
23:36:39 <gaba> nickm: what is missing?
23:36:46 <gaba> move back?
23:36:48 <gaba> let me check
23:37:13 <nickm> gaba: there is nothing for my "tor-guts" rewrite work -- the documentation of tor's current architecture and layout
23:37:30 <gaba> which ticket nickm?
23:37:38 <nickm> #29214
23:37:58 <nickm> Also I don't see anything here for #31851 ?
23:38:07 <nickm> ah, I see #29214 now.
23:38:10 <nickm> never mind :/
23:38:22 <gaba> teor: are you saying that you are not going to work on #30901 in the next weeks/month?
23:38:35 <teor> How many weeks?
23:38:44 <gaba> next 2 weeks
23:38:51 <gaba> or in the sponsor (in the next month)
23:39:12 <teor> (Wow, that's confusing, let's just use one time period?)
23:39:49 <gaba> i'm using the column 'next' to mark what we are going to do until next meeting (2 weeks)
23:39:52 <gaba> and the backlog for the rest
23:40:11 <gaba> if this is not something to include in the sponsor we remove it or move it to the icebox
23:40:24 <teor> Ok, then it belongs in "Next" or "Backlog" depending on how much work I get done on #31482 and #31851
23:40:43 <gaba> ok. I'm going to move it to the backlog and then we check again next meeting
23:41:00 <teor> teor @teor removed Doing label 1 day ago
23:41:00 <teor> teor @teor added Next label 1 day ago
23:41:31 <teor> Do you want to manage my tickets on the board? Or do you want me to?
23:41:32 <gaba> Is there anything else to talk in this meeting? Everybody ok?
23:41:55 <gaba> teor: you can move them and i check with you
23:41:59 * catalyst is good for now
23:42:28 <gaba> Next meeting is on November 5th at 23UTC. ok?
23:42:35 <teor> #31511 doesn't make sense
23:42:39 <teor> It's a TODO item
23:42:55 <teor> It isn't actually a unit of work, it's a reminder
23:43:34 <nickm> I'd prefer to close that TBH.  There is no apparent work to be done for it.
23:43:39 <teor> Same with #31516
23:43:52 <gaba> yes, let's close what is not work
23:44:02 <nickm> ok w you teor?
23:44:09 <teor> yes, that's fine
23:44:37 * nickm closes
23:45:01 <gaba> ok. I'm going to end the meeting. Any other discussion can go outside :)
23:45:06 <gaba> #endmeeting