22:59:10 <ahf> #startmeeting Network team meeting, 8 January 2020
22:59:10 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed Jan  8 22:59:10 2020 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:59:10 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
22:59:14 <ahf> hello network team!
22:59:18 <catalyst> hi
23:00:00 <ahf> the pad is still at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep - i have made a link to the 2020 pad in the 2019 pad (i guess it's a blockchain now?) that we can use next week
23:00:18 <ahf> who is here other than catalyst?
23:00:21 <nickm> me!
23:00:30 <ahf> o/ nickm
23:00:44 <ahf> mikeperry, teor4, dgoulet: any of you here?
23:00:53 <nickm> hi ahf! I think you were sick? How are you doing now?
23:01:03 <ahf> i spoke with asn earlier today, should say hi from him and he said he was recovering
23:01:25 <mikeperry> heyo
23:01:26 <nickm> that's good to hear
23:01:28 <mikeperry> I am sort of here
23:01:31 <ahf> i was having some inner ear canal infection so my balance was a bit off and i was ... having normal flu things, which sucked
23:01:46 <ahf> but mostly the lying still with the head was. managed to play pokemon a bit and that is it
23:01:49 <ahf> hey mikeperry!
23:01:52 <ahf> ok, let's see what we are gonna do
23:02:09 <ahf> how are things looking with roadmap?
23:02:21 <ahf> the link is at https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/boards
23:02:45 <ahf> i haven't created the tickets i wanted to create for the jan/feb roadmap for myself yet, so i at least am a bit behind there
23:03:02 <nickm> yeah, it doesn't have a bunch to do with what we're doing right now...
23:03:05 <ahf> and at least one of them is a task where i am gonna work on it with nickm (look into the rust ed25519)
23:04:33 <nickm> IIUC my tasks are working on C style and working on modularization stuff. I have patches in review there, and am waiting for reviews to come back.
23:04:42 <ahf> should we ask people to make sure they revise the roadmap items AND create the missing tickets for jan/feb/mar ?
23:05:38 <ahf> and by people i mean each other here
23:05:40 * teor is here
23:05:45 <nickm> hi teor!
23:05:46 <ahf> o/ teor
23:05:47 <nickm> how are you?
23:06:52 <ahf> ok, i think that is what we'll do! please walk over the things we talked about there in december and get the roadmap revised 8)
23:06:53 <nickm> ahf: I think it's reasonable to create our own tickets for jan/feb/mar items, but doing duplicate copies of everything on gitlab seems laborious
23:07:01 <teor> Slowly getting better, just pacing myself
23:07:16 <ahf> nickm: hm, maybe i could do that so everybody don't have to fight that
23:07:21 <ahf> if we just create tickets with some keyword on?
23:07:38 <ahf> i know the duplicated work is super demotivating :-/
23:08:03 <ahf> can people tag their new roadmpa tickets with networkteam2020q1 or something like that?
23:08:09 <nickm> sure; maybe spell out in an email what we should do, linking to the current summary of our december meeting?
23:08:18 <ahf> good idea
23:08:39 <ahf> ok, i'll write an email tomorrow morning with this and we can prepare it for next week. that should be fine
23:08:43 <ahf> cool!
23:09:05 <ahf> how are we looking with reviews? neither david or asn is here, so we wont get any status from them
23:09:46 <ahf> 3 tickets in needs_review right now with a person to review them
23:09:48 <teor> ahf: I think gaba was using network-team-roadmap-* in trac, so let's follow that pattern?
23:10:01 <ahf> teor: ya, i will ask gaba before doing this. good idea
23:10:27 <nickm> I think I have my reviews under control
23:10:34 <ahf> cool
23:11:07 <nickm> teor: you looked at the last vewsion of #37264. Is it okay if I set you as reviewer on that?
23:11:11 <nickm> *version
23:11:33 <nickm> (Also, I hope it's okay to put it back in needs_review; the only changes I did was to show that CI passes)
23:11:50 <teor> Oh did we lose zwiebelbot over the holidays?
23:12:00 <nickm> " Solve code issues that block running clang-format on our code. "
23:12:13 <nickm> it's in the channel, but it isn't saying anything. :/
23:12:26 <ahf> #5000
23:12:37 <ahf> maybe the ticket was mentioned somewhere else within a short timeframe?
23:12:37 <nickm> how about that.
23:13:32 <teor> #37264: No matches found.
23:13:33 <teor> That's what trac says
23:13:38 <nickm> #32764
23:13:40 <nickm> arg
23:13:52 <nickm> my bas
23:13:55 <nickm> *bad
23:14:46 <nickm> catalyst: if we can't find a tester for #32778, do you think we should go ahead and merge?
23:15:35 <catalyst> nickm: yeah, it seems reasonable by inspection, and appveyor seems to be ok with it
23:15:50 <catalyst> i think we lack automated testing for that functionality
23:16:09 * arma2 is nearby if people need any arma things
23:16:15 <teor> nickm: to be clear, you want the pre_formatter_cleanups branch reviewed? Is there a PR?
23:16:34 <nickm> yes -- it's in the first comment on the ticket
23:17:16 <teor> thanks, I made a note on the ticket
23:17:49 <nickm> thanks!
23:18:06 <teor> arma: you might also want to review #32588, since you filed the bug. And the related change in #32822.
23:18:35 <nickm> teor: you and I are listed as co-reviewers on #29801 and #20218. How do you want to proceed on those?
23:18:38 <teor> dgoulet will also review it, id you don't have time :-)
23:20:18 <teor> nickm: for #20218, can one of us write a few simple tests, and the other review and merge? I don't mind which task I do.
23:20:59 <nickm> I'd be okay with both too. Does one seem more fun to you?
23:21:17 <nickm> if you don't care, I'll write tests.
23:21:32 <teor> Given my work/health time constraints right now, I think review would be easier and less likely to block
23:21:36 <nickm> ok
23:21:56 <teor> I'll edit the ticket to record that decision
23:22:04 <nickm> thanks!
23:22:07 <ahf> thx :-)
23:22:20 <nickm> Looks like the author would like help writing tests themself: I'll do one as an example and see where they want to go
23:23:11 <ahf> do we want to move to discussions?
23:23:29 <nickm> ok w me
23:23:35 <teor> #29801 is a bit complicated. I think we got stuck in a write-review-add loop, and now we need to cut it down.
23:23:39 <ahf> first item there is from nickm with: * How would we feel about moving authdir_mode() and server_mode() into src/core? (They are used pervasively through the code, and might not actually belong in the modules that they enable/disable.) -nickm
23:23:58 * ahf is personally OK with it, seems like something we use everywhere
23:24:23 <nickm> teor: that task is to write a proposal, right?  If so, can we just take the current thing and call it a proposal, send it to tor-dev, and iterate?
23:24:37 * nickm is likely not up to date on the situation w 29801
23:25:05 <teor> nickm: yes, I think we should just merge the proposal as-is, it's already been through a few iterations
23:25:12 <teor> But let me review it furst
23:25:21 <nickm> ok. I'll take myself off as reviewer then?
23:25:32 <teor> ok
23:25:57 <teor> The likely outcome is that I'll implement part of the proposal for the IPv6 grant. Or implement a very simplified form of the proposal.
23:26:27 <nickm> [oh, on announcements: 0.2.9.x is EOL; 0.4.0.x is EOL in 25 days.]
23:26:40 <nickm> [0.4.3.x is feature-frozen in one week.]
23:27:41 <nickm> catalyst, teor: I'd like your opinions on the two discussion topics I put on the pad, since they are about code-cleanup/modularization stuff
23:27:55 <ahf> :-)
23:28:27 <catalyst> nickm: neutral to positive on killing off macros that make our code harder to parse
23:28:53 <catalyst> (unless they have really significant benefits)
23:29:14 <teor> Seems like a net win to me, we're not using them consistently, and so they make different styles of unit test harder to read.
23:29:56 <teor> As for moving authdir_mode() and server_mode():
23:30:08 <teor> I think it's a win for modularity / dependencies
23:30:24 <catalyst> re moving code, i would need more info
23:30:45 <nickm> (what info would help?)
23:30:48 <ahf> hm, i don't even remember using NS() in the places where they are used today
23:30:55 <ahf> only NS_MOCK() and NS_UNMOCK()
23:30:58 <catalyst> nickm: mostly time to look at how things are right now
23:31:05 <nickm> ok
23:31:49 <teor> We wanted to have a code structure where the ENABLE_MODULE_* macros are only used in the relevant directories
23:32:07 <teor> So moving this code would break that guideline
23:33:02 <teor> But if it simplifies a bunch of dependencies, or removes the mode header includes, it could be a net win
23:33:29 <nickm> maybe I should give it a try with dirauth, and we can see how the change looks?
23:33:46 <teor> Yes, let's see how it looks
23:33:49 <nickm> okay
23:34:38 <ahf> i see one more item from catalyst:
23:34:45 <ahf> - teor, i set you as additional reviewer on #32846; please let me know if you'd rather not do it
23:36:07 <nickm> (also: I want to make it so that the dircache code also gets disabled when we are not a relay.  Should it be controlled by a separate HAVE_MODULE_DIRCACHE, or is HAVE_MODULE_RELAY okay? I lean to the former)
23:36:31 <nickm> (I'm thinking of doing this because there are comparatively few entry points)
23:36:46 <teor> ahf, catalyst: yes, that's fine, I can look at that manual page change
23:37:15 <ahf> cool!
23:37:40 <catalyst> teor: thanks!
23:38:00 <ahf> nickm: i think the former is cleaner?
23:38:09 <teor> nickm: I think we initially decided to disable everything using the RELAY define
23:38:45 <teor> Is there a clean separation between the two? How will we test them? What's the dependency tree look like?
23:39:07 <nickm> I think that we should do it, for now, so that dircache <=> relay.
23:39:14 <nickm> That is, let's not support having one but not the other.
23:39:25 <nickm> in theory, they are independent
23:39:39 <nickm> the separation is src/feature/dircache vs src/feature/relay --
23:39:47 <teor> Oh, right, so it's effectively documentation, not a separate mode
23:39:52 <nickm> right
23:40:58 <ahf> do we have anything else we need to look at during this meeting?
23:40:59 <teor> Seems fine to me, we should probably review all the existing HAVE_MODULE_RELAY instances, to make sure they're relay-specific
23:41:04 <nickm> not afaik
23:41:13 <nickm> teor: ok. I'll pick this up too :)
23:41:40 <teor> ahf: in january we might want to talk about getting a 0.4.3 bug status page?
23:41:42 <teor> You wrote that on the pad :-)
23:41:46 <ahf> please get back to my email on 1:1's - i hope to write to people ASAP with when we are gonna have our next 1:1 8)
23:41:54 <ahf> ohhh teor, good point
23:42:00 <nickm> teor: +1 on an 043 bug status page
23:42:03 <ahf> do we want to have a 0.4.3 status pgae and talk about it during our meetings?
23:42:12 <nickm> +1
23:42:13 <ahf> we did it for 0.4.2 and i thought it was useful to have each week
23:42:23 <ahf> teor: did you create the 0.4.2 one?
23:42:40 <teor> nickm did it based on one I did a long time ago
23:42:43 <nickm> I think I made it by copying the 042 one
23:42:49 <ahf> can one just "copy" the markdown from the 042 one and update it with 043 stuff ?
23:42:56 <teor> Yes, that should work
23:42:56 <ahf> ah, there is one for 0.4.3 already?
23:43:07 <nickm> wow, did I do that?
23:43:22 <nickm> (catalyst: are you okay if I copy your comments above on #32778 onto the ticket?)
23:43:33 <ahf> ah, no, there is no 043status yet
23:43:39 <teor> No, I don't see an 0.4.3 status page
23:43:44 <ahf> i'll create that one tomorrow as well then and get it into the new pad for the next meeting
23:44:01 <catalyst> nickm: sure, go ahead
23:44:12 <nickm> ahf: do you want to pick a time between now and Monday to assign 043-must/043-should?
23:44:19 <nickm> or at least to do a first pass
23:44:24 <nickm> catalyst: thanks, will do
23:44:41 <ahf> nickm: should the whole team be involved there or ?
23:45:22 <ahf> how about after vegas meeting tomorrow ?
23:45:25 <nickm> ok
23:45:31 <nickm> I've usually done a first pass myself, and invited the team to look it over
23:45:52 <nickm> that time works for me
23:45:59 <ahf> maybe the team can go over it on monday if we have the status page there?
23:46:19 <nickm> yeah; or we can send out a note when we've done the first pass and the status page is up
23:46:26 <nickm> and people can do it when they get the chance
23:46:27 <nickm> either way
23:46:37 <ahf> sounds good!
23:46:44 <ahf> let's do that tomorrow after the vegas meeting
23:46:49 <nickm> ok
23:46:50 <ahf> i'll have the page ready prior to that then
23:47:01 <ahf> oki, anything else? otherwise i'll tell the bot to stop logging
23:47:06 <teor> I talked with gaba, and if everything goes to plan, the IPv6 grant should start on 1 February
23:47:20 <nickm> great
23:47:21 <ahf> woh, nice teor!
23:47:29 <teor> So I might not get to do as much of our unfunded roadmap as I thought
23:47:48 <teor> We should also think about nickm's time for that, and anyone else who wants to be involved
23:48:05 <teor> (I think we can shift staff around a bit, but let's check with gaba)
23:48:47 <ahf> yep
23:48:56 <teor> So there aren't any action items yet, but I just wanted people to know
23:49:09 <teor> We should do a mini-roadmap once it's confirmed
23:49:16 <ahf> yep, agreed
23:49:21 <nickm> woo
23:49:39 <ahf> cool, gonna ask the bot to stop. thanks all for a nice first meeting o/
23:49:43 <ahf> see you around on irc!
23:49:48 <ahf> #stopmeeting
23:49:51 <ahf> #endmeeting