17:59:28 <ahf> #startmeeting Network team meeting, 18 november 2019
17:59:28 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Nov 18 17:59:28 2019 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:28 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:32 <ahf> hello everybody
17:59:33 <ahf> o/
17:59:36 <dgoulet> hi!
17:59:40 <nickm> hello!
17:59:45 <catalyst> o/
17:59:46 <ahf> our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep
18:00:07 <asn> hello!
18:00:21 <ahf> let us start by looking at our 0.4.2 status page!
18:00:52 <ahf> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/042Status
18:01:07 <nickm> I think my remaining items should not be done in 042.
18:01:33 <nickm> If anybody else has open items for 0.4.2, please consider whether we can defer them?
18:02:09 <nickm> At this point, since 0.4.2 is in RC, I'd rather only include fixes that are very important, or very safe.
18:02:14 <nickm> ideally both
18:02:41 <gaba> o/
18:02:44 <ahf> ugh, sorry, just had an internet problem
18:03:12 <ahf> nickm: so one excercise for every team member that still have tickets is to go over their tickets and omve them to 0.4.3 if they think that is what will happen?
18:03:29 <nickm> I think so.
18:03:49 <nickm> and make a note on any that you _are_ doing for 0.4.2
18:04:38 <ahf> #10416 is sure is gonna move to 0.4.3
18:04:48 <ahf> is this something people can do async out of the meeting or do you want it settled now?
18:05:30 <nickm> I am okay with async.
18:06:00 <ahf> okay, so everybody needs to look over their 0.4.2 tickets this week, please :-)
18:06:16 <ahf> let's move to roadmap!
18:06:35 <ahf> https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/-/boards
18:07:07 <ahf> how are things looking there?
18:07:07 <gaba> s31 is arriving to an end in a couple of weeks :)
18:07:13 <ahf> yeah
18:07:16 <gaba> I sent a mail to people involved to help with the last report
18:07:34 <gaba> And it seems that asn and dgoulet may be done with the stuff on s27 must at the end of December
18:08:04 <asn> heh let's keep that with a grain of salt ;)
18:08:07 <nickm> many of the "doing " items are partially "in review"
18:08:15 <nickm> and partially "doing".
18:08:16 <ahf> i just saw the ticket with HS error codes moved to merge_ready today - very nice
18:08:49 <asn> merge_ready? :)
18:08:58 <dgoulet> yeah grain of salt indeed but we already done so much for s27... not much is left to make them happy for sure imo
18:09:05 <ahf> maybe i saw it wrong
18:09:20 <ahf> gaba: but s27 is to later than end of december, no?
18:09:30 <asn> yes it's till start of april
18:09:31 <gaba> we will need to coordinate what non-sponsor work to do in january and february :) Other than the few things for s28 and s30 :P
18:09:39 <gaba> ahf: yes
18:10:04 <ahf> i have the feeling that there is some interst in being able to continue on some of the things that s31 was about if that will be possible, but we should probably figure out what
18:10:24 <gaba> yes
18:10:46 <gaba> and there is a lot of stuff in the backlog from the roadmap we discussed in july
18:11:03 <gaba> actually not a lot, some :)
18:11:19 <ahf> yeah
18:11:49 <ahf> our goal is to have a roadmap meeting in december?
18:12:20 <nickm> if so we need to start scheduling it now IMO
18:12:56 <ahf> yes
18:13:03 <ahf> gaba: what do you think?
18:13:24 <gaba> yes
18:13:31 <gaba> I will send a mail this week to doodle it
18:13:41 <ahf> sweet, thanks
18:13:47 <gaba> and we can all choose a day in December
18:14:15 <ahf> yeah, good idea
18:14:32 <ahf> okay, let's look at reviewer assignments?
18:15:20 <asn> only three tickets this week
18:15:22 <asn> two s31 ones, one HS one
18:15:29 <asn> they were assigned accordingly
18:15:36 <nickm> I'm okay with what I have for now; thanks to everybody who took stuff off my plate.
18:16:31 <ahf> cool
18:16:44 <ahf> i have one discussion item forwarded from last week
18:16:58 <ahf> nickm: if i do a draft late in this week (wednesday or thursday) are you up for iterating on it with me?
18:17:14 <ahf> this weeks seems a lot less weird for me, since i have a lot less CVs to read
18:17:17 <nickm> looking...
18:17:31 <nickm> Yes, I and read a draft
18:17:55 <nickm> *can read a draft
18:17:56 <nickm> sorry
18:18:12 <ahf> great, let's do it that way then, i will prod you about it
18:18:36 <ahf> catalyst: is your highlighted item for this week?
18:19:08 <catalyst> ahf: hm, i don't think i have an answer from teor but no strong objections so far
18:19:33 <ahf> ah, i'd think it is better to ping teor directly or email them? i think they read the summaries of the meetings, but not everything on the pad
18:19:36 <ahf> which i can understand
18:19:47 <catalyst> ahf: yeah, good idea
18:20:04 <ahf> does anybody else have anything to discuss?
18:20:33 <nickm> did anybody look at that email I sent out with c style branches?
18:20:42 * catalyst did briefly
18:20:49 <ahf> with the tools?
18:20:55 <ahf> clang-format etc?
18:21:11 <nickm> it was last week; it had three branches, each resulting from applying one of those tools to our code
18:21:24 <ahf> yeah
18:21:29 <nickm> title "more fun with c style tools"
18:21:51 <ahf> i have used clang-format before and i liked the output i saw in that one and it is the only of those tools i know from elsewhere
18:21:58 <dgoulet> I picked clang-format in the first communication so when I saw that nickm said clang was a bit better, I didn't look at the branches :S
18:22:07 <catalyst> nickm: i see a few tweaks that should maybe be done to the clang-format config, but would like to dig a bit more
18:22:28 <nickm> I'm fine with that
18:23:00 <nickm> okay, so hearing no objections, I'm going to go with the assumption that clang-format is the current direction, and look at it a little more thoroughly
18:23:01 <catalyst> relatedly, still looking for feedback about my high-level C style guidelines
18:23:12 <ahf> clang-format is also pretty easy to run early in CI right to detect if there is a delta (and thus someone submitted patches without having run it)
18:23:22 <ahf> catalyst: the survey?
18:23:34 <catalyst> ahf: yeah
18:23:36 <nickm> catalyst: whom do you need responses from?
18:23:40 <ahf> who is missing to submit?
18:24:22 <catalyst> missing teor and mikeperry maybe? i'm not sure. but maybe it's good enough. no negative votes so far
18:25:02 <nickm> certainly, following the guideline of "start with an existing style that looks like ours, and tweak only as desired" certainly gave me cleaner results than my first attempt
18:25:20 <catalyst> nickm: ah, that's good to hear
18:27:04 <ahf> yep
18:27:05 <nickm> catalyst: i'm hoping to get an actual proposal done here in november; do you think you could get me suggestions on clang tweaks this week?
18:27:15 <nickm> I'm happy to pick up extra work there if there's a bunch of digging to do
18:27:17 <catalyst> nickm: ok
18:27:53 <nickm> catalyst: thank you!
18:28:21 <ahf> cool!
18:28:24 <ahf> anything else?
18:28:38 <gaba> not from me
18:28:54 <asn> im good
18:29:06 <ahf> i'm gonna tell our bot to end our meeting then 8)
18:29:07 <ahf> #endmeeting