18:01:57 <mikeperry> #startmeeting tbb-dev
18:01:57 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Apr 13 18:01:57 2015 UTC.  The chair is mikeperry. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:57 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:02:48 <mikeperry> hello everyone. let's get started
18:03:01 <Yawning> hi
18:03:40 <mikeperry> Last week, other than helping Georg with 4.0.7 and 4.0.8, I mostly ended up doing non-TBB work (Android and Tor org stuff). I also wrote a patch for start-tor-browser to add --register-app and --unregister-app command args, which still needs a ticket.
18:04:07 <mikeperry> This week, I plan to review patches, think a little bit more about #15482 and #15514, and help with #4100.
18:05:29 <mikeperry> I think we should aim for having everything mergeworthy in 4.5-stable by the end of the week
18:05:57 <mikeperry> which means trimming down https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?keywords=~tbb-4.5-alpha&status=!closed and/or making sure everything is claimed
18:06:54 <mikeperry> that's it for me for now
18:07:37 <Yawning> uh mine is short
18:08:03 <mikeperry> go ahead
18:08:15 <Yawning> I wrote the rage hack for obfs4proxy to have a internal socsk5 server and will likely merge/tag obfs4proxy 0.0.5 with it this week
18:08:44 <Yawning> I know it's not prefered, but, neither is my branch sitting in limbo, and this fixes it for everyone who uses obfs4proxy which also includes debian and tails now
18:08:49 <mikeperry> heh, ok. was this because of the debian deadline? when is that?
18:09:10 <Yawning> no, it's because the stupid branch has sat in limbo for months
18:09:11 <Yawning> >.>
18:09:54 <Yawning> and just giving you guys an overlay patch or a different branch
18:10:03 <Yawning> doesn't solve the problem for orbot/tails/debian/arch/etc
18:10:06 <mikeperry> has dcf been busy elsewhere lately? that doesn't seem typical for him
18:10:13 <Yawning> dunno
18:10:36 <Yawning> anyway, my branch is a cleaned up/improved version of the goptlib code so
18:10:44 <Yawning> it works, it has tests
18:11:10 <Yawning> since my obfs4 bridge has ipv6 connectivity, I even made sure that works
18:11:18 <Yawning> (works great)
18:11:48 <Yawning> that's it for me unless y'all have other things that are on fire that needs my attention
18:13:44 <mikeperry> ok. so if this is instead of #12535 for 4.5-stable, is there a ticket for it?or should we make one just to use the 0.0.5 tag?
18:15:11 <Yawning> I'll make a ticket when I tag it
18:15:27 <mikeperry> ok cool. please add keyword tbb-4.5-alpha
18:15:31 <Yawning> was gonna give y'all and the pt meeting people a chance to change my mind about doing this
18:15:58 <mikeperry> ok. I am indifferent. I understand the need to make sure it gets in debian+tails
18:16:09 <Yawning> but I think my rationale for merging my rage branch is solid enough
18:16:16 <mikeperry> so I won't object. I just find it weird for dcf to be unresponsive
18:16:48 <mikeperry> he is normally very attentive to stuff and helpful.
18:17:19 <isis> +3/away
18:17:21 <Yawning> yeah I'll bug him about it
18:19:51 <isis> err,  +1 on SOCKS5 instead of SOCKS4a, also i am not away anymore
18:21:12 <mikeperry> ok, who's next?
18:21:25 <GeKo> here is what I did:
18:22:02 <GeKo> I was actually afk most of the week due to non-Tor things this week but I am back to a normal schedule
18:22:16 <GeKo> at least I managed to help with our releases
18:22:36 <GeKo> today I spent time on #4100 and #15599
18:22:51 <GeKo> and gave the tor browser user manual a closer read
18:23:27 <GeKo> tomorrow I plan to update #4100 with my findings and attach a patch for review
18:23:44 <GeKo> then reviewing other stuff is on my plate
18:24:15 <GeKo> and I think I try to get #15599 fixed as it worries me even if it is not as bad as I first thought
18:24:34 <GeKo> I think I can start looking at #15598 as well
18:24:43 <GeKo> that's it so far
18:25:21 <mikeperry> #4100 needs a patch? interesting
18:25:49 <GeKo> well, just resetting our reduced keep-alive and a better comment explaining things
18:26:06 <mikeperry> ah, ok great
18:26:09 <GeKo> I think everything is fine at least wrt to no spdy things
18:26:45 <GeKo> not sure about the latter yet but as we have spdy disabled anyway this is not urgent
18:26:56 <GeKo> and better handled with our HTTP/2 audit IMO
18:28:34 <mikeperry> I agree wrt HTTP/2 over spdy..
18:28:53 <mikeperry> I wonder if Google will switch to HTTP/2 instead of spdy..
18:29:17 <Yawning> (QUIC lol)
18:30:17 <GeKo> I think so but even if we decide to enable spdy additionally I think auditing both wrt to keep-alive issues makes sense as they are quite similar (at least in this regard)
18:30:55 <GeKo> s/auditing both/auditing both together/
18:31:25 <mcs> http://blog.chromium.org/2015/02/hello-http2-goodbye-spdy-http-is_9.html ("We plan to remove support for SPDY in early 2016…")
18:31:25 <mikeperry> ok
18:32:48 * mcs can go next
18:33:33 <mcs> During the past two weeks, Kathy and I reviewed patches and did some bug triage.
18:33:40 <mcs> We looked at #15532 but decided to defer it for now.
18:33:47 <mcs> We investigated #15491 and closed it (no changes needed).
18:34:05 <mcs> We put a couple of Tor Launcher patches out for review: #13576 and #15657.
18:34:13 <mcs> Assuming that those patches pass review, we will need to decide if they should be included in TB 4.5.
18:34:20 <mcs> We also did some miscellaneous updater testing for TB 4.0.8 and 4.5a5.
18:34:25 <mcs> Finally, we discussed #15637 and thought about how we can make update testing part of the QA process.
18:34:35 <mcs> Is that worth pursuing?  I am not sure who should own the testing task, but when a build is announced on tor-qa we would need to have signed MAR files ready,
18:34:40 <mcs> we would need a test https server to host the files (we could probably just use people.TPO),
18:34:45 <mcs> and we would need to have a way to create tweaked .htaccess and update.xml files (suitable for use on the test https server).
18:34:51 <mcs> This week we will help with other remaining 4.5 issues and also look at #14716 and #14387.
18:34:56 <mcs> That's all for now.
18:36:39 <boklm> mcs: I can look at the update testing part
18:37:42 <GeKo> I am a bit reluctant here as I definitely don't want to reduce the time between tor-qa post and release
18:37:54 <mcs> boklm: Thanks. One issue is that I am not sure when mikeperry and GeKo actually sign the MAR files.
18:38:44 <mikeperry> yeah, signing is the bottleneck here, since it must be done offline and requires a lot of copying+uploading of many MAR files
18:38:53 <GeKo> yup
18:39:11 <mcs> So maybe it is enough to have the new text boklm added and for us just to be careful ;)
18:39:24 <GeKo> that's what I currently think
18:39:35 <GeKo> especially as the updater was working as expected
18:39:54 <mcs> OK. I just wanted to ask here.
18:40:39 <mikeperry> GeKo: speaking of signing, do you know what this "AppLocker" publisher rule thing is from #3861?
18:41:05 <GeKo> good question I almost forgot about it.
18:41:37 <mcs> I think they are asking for each embedded exe and dll to be signed, not just our installer?
18:41:39 <GeKo> no, but I should look for some information about it
18:42:28 <GeKo> seems so, but afaict Mozilla is not doing that, so I was wondering why that is no broader issue
18:42:31 <mcs> (but I don't know anything about AppLocker)
18:42:53 <GeKo> I'll investigate a bit I think
18:42:54 <mikeperry> it is perhaps an option or additional AV product or something?
18:43:05 <GeKo> probably
18:43:12 <mcs> GeKo: Good question. For some reason, I thought Mozilla was doing that (or used to?)  But I may be wrong.
18:43:36 <Yawning> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759117.aspx
18:44:37 <Yawning> wonder which versions of win8 support it
18:44:52 <Yawning> everything, or just the "I paid too much for this Edition"
18:46:35 <mcs> And it does look like firefox.exe is signed by Mozilla (I just checked 37.0.1 on Win7)
18:47:20 <GeKo> interesting
18:47:21 <mikeperry> ugh, that's a lot of signing :/
18:47:30 <mcs> ugh indeed.
18:47:45 <GeKo> and it might be orthogonal given https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=902771
18:48:02 <GeKo> we'll see
18:49:19 <Yawning> (so wait, pt executable sna dstuff will also need signatures right? :/)
18:49:51 <mikeperry> it does sound like it's mostly enterprise/"I paid too much for this Edition" editions  https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759131.aspx
18:52:39 * arthuredelstein can report next
18:53:02 <arthuredelstein> Over the last week I wrote patches for #13875, #15651, #14429, and #15502 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418986. My patch in #14429 looks like it still has problems dealing with the window size after "New Identity", so I'll work on that this week. I thought perhaps I can also start looking at #15579 and #15196.
18:53:44 <arthuredelstein> That's it.
18:54:56 <mikeperry> (#15672 is my desktop app registration ticket, btw)
18:56:04 * boklm can report next
18:56:28 <boklm> I posted a patch in #15670, and fixed #15643
18:56:35 <boklm> I extended the tbb-qa.yml file format to allow selecting a tor-browser commit to build and run mozilla unit tests, using something like this: http://people.torproject.org/~boklm/builds/tbb-qa.yml
18:56:40 <boklm> this week I'm planning to:
18:56:45 <boklm> - add documentation about this on the wiki
18:56:51 <boklm> - add an option to select a git repository (to test a commit in a personnal repo)
18:57:02 <boklm> - add an option to test all commits in a branch and show differences
18:57:14 <boklm> that's it
18:58:08 <mikeperry> that sounds great boklm. should help us a lot with 38 rebase work. send a mail out to tbb-dev when you've got the wiki updated and everything is ready?
18:58:25 <boklm> mikeperry: yes
18:58:34 <arthuredelstein> sounds very useful
19:00:00 <mcs> For the 38 rebase, how do we plan to divide up the work?
19:00:02 <mikeperry> arthuredelstein: I still have a soft spot for #14429, so even if it ends up preffed off, you can still try to polish it for 4.5-stable this week if you like.
19:00:26 <mikeperry> I am also fine with it adjusting in 100x100 multiples, so long as the initial window size remains 200x100
19:00:43 <arthuredelstein> mikeperry: OK, I'll try. I always get surprised by new weird bugs. :(
19:02:13 <mikeperry> mcs: so I plan to review all of the "Firefox for developers" APIs and undocumented bugs for each Firefox release, as well as do the networking review/grep. I could use a second set of eyes on the Firefox docs+bugs (maybe GeKo's?)
19:02:32 <GeKo> I am not sure about switching to 100x100. What is the rationale for that?
19:02:51 <mikeperry> I was also planning on trying to squash down our patches a bit
19:02:52 <GeKo> yeah, I can have a look at the ff docs and bugs as well
19:04:25 <arthuredelstein> GeKo: In the new version of #14429, I don't shrink the window when it is maximized. Instead I zoom the contents to fill the height. So we're left with margins at left and right. I think users will be much less bothered by 100px of wasted space than 200px. But it's true that 200px is not terrible, at least for reasonable screen sizes.
19:05:00 <mikeperry> my thinking was that resizers will likely be noticable as such, because they will likely have very large window sizes, so making the resize jumping smaller seems OK to me
19:07:09 <GeKo> I see. Seems fine to me then.
19:07:28 <arthuredelstein> mikeperry: Sorry, I'm not sure I quite follow
19:07:34 <mikeperry> wrt rebasing individual patches and fixing the tests, I am not sure how to divide that up..
19:08:58 <mcs> mikeperry: OK. It sounds like dividing up should wait until after patches are squashed in any case.
19:09:11 <mikeperry> arthuredelstein: I have not yet tested the zooming version  of #14429 actually. my comments might not be valid wrt the window resolution of the new version... but my thinking was the 1 bit extra entropy for 100x100 instead of 200x100 might not even be 1 bit
19:09:30 <arthuredelstein> mikeperry: Aha, I see.
19:09:40 <GeKo> yes
19:11:07 <arthuredelstein> I had thought about introducing a set of allowed sizes that gradually increase in interval, like 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 800, 1000.
19:11:27 <arthuredelstein> But I fear that will be more confusing to users.
19:14:44 <mikeperry> yeah, I suspect so. there seem to be enough issues with just a simple algorithm also.. I could see weird things happening at one of the resolutions but not others, due to some toolbar+rounding interaction, etc
19:15:55 <arthuredelstein> True. I'll leave it at 100x100 for now.
19:19:41 <mikeperry> ok. I think that wraps it up? I think we seem to be in good shape for 4.5. Target merge date Thurs/Friday, and I will kick off a test build then, perhaps?
19:20:18 <GeKo> sounds good to me
19:21:43 <mikeperry> ok. thanks everyone. Hopefully by this time next week we'll have some candidate builds for the best TBB ever ;)
19:21:53 <mikeperry> #endmeeting *baf*