17:59:12 #startmeeting Network team meeting, 27 January 2020 17:59:12 Meeting started Mon Jan 27 17:59:12 2020 UTC. The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:59:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:59:14 woh! 17:59:19 hello network-team :-) 17:59:26 hello!! 17:59:29 our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2020.1-keep 17:59:31 hello! 17:59:46 o/ 18:00:05 everybody, please remember we have the retrospective in 2 days on the 29th! and think about things you wanna talk about there :-) 18:00:11 hi 18:00:20 let's start out with roadmap! 18:00:23 Let's check and update our roadmap: What's done, and what's coming up? Use: https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/boards 18:01:04 are everybody good there? 18:02:11 im good 18:02:16 hihi! 18:02:27 I'm good there 18:02:37 good 18:02:47 great! 18:02:55 are we good with reviewers assignment this week? 18:03:10 looks like I didn't get anything new? 18:03:16 there are 3 unassigned tickets 18:03:28 dgoulet: ^ 18:03:35 two of them seem to be swbws tickets 18:03:38 we are not sure how to assign those 18:03:53 (dgoulet was thinking that perhaps we should ask geko) 18:03:57 i can take the first one, i need to read up on sbws too 18:04:08 hope to learn more about it on friday in brussels too 18:04:11 and the third ticket should not be reviewed yet 18:04:39 yeah the #33029 is tricky and I need to talk to more people about that one 18:04:47 so no specific reviewer for now 18:04:58 i've taken the first one. anybody up for reviewing #30733 ? 18:05:21 we should build some more domain knowledge of sbws and teor have been doing a lot of that, but teor is in ipv6 land right now 18:05:55 after net health team kickoff last week, there is much to talk about sbws 18:06:04 if #33029 is not supposed to be reviewed should we move it to something else than needs_review ? 18:06:05 and I believe an email is coming soon on our side about it 18:06:17 ahf: well it is... just that I need to hand pick someone :P 18:06:29 (to talk about ideas here) 18:06:33 nickm 18:06:47 catalyst: you offered before to do sbws. is this something you can take now? 18:07:03 gaba: i could, but would probably need lots of ramp-up 18:07:06 ah. i'd just like to be able to point people to that list and have folks check in in the morning if there are stuff on the list that they think they can review so we do less and less assignment and more where people pull fro the review queue 18:07:46 i've also asked GeKo now 18:07:58 worst case i can try to look at it while i'm close to juga on friday too 18:08:01 sure, I'll review if you pick me. :) 18:08:14 nickm: need to schedule a discussion time with you actually, we'll ping you after 18:08:20 nickm: _thanks_ 18:08:21 sweet 18:08:22 i don't know sbws well enough to review that one sadly :/ 18:08:27 dgoulet: ok! 18:08:56 we should _really_ have a "sort-of-maintainer" for sbws within net team imo 18:08:59 nickm: no worries, you already have some tickets with your name on for review 18:09:02 at least someone that can lead it 18:09:41 dgoulet: yeah. i think we should also find a way to do this well while teor can focus on v6 things right now 18:09:52 i'm gonna try to dive a bit into it, i already looked a bit at it last week to prepare for fosdem 18:09:58 ok 18:10:05 we have a lot of discussion items that i think teor has added 18:10:14 agree on the need to have 1 or 2 mantainers in the net team 18:10:35 sbws related... 18:10:43 one is about v6 proposals for s55. teor already wrote one, they are working on the next two, so please wrap your head around it and give some feedback :-) 18:11:13 does anybody have anything they want to say about this topic other than that? 18:12:03 i take that as a no 18:12:11 oki! then 2nd item is about backports 18:12:23 and i think the big two questions are: 18:12:28 Should we backport all the fixes that we tested in 0.4.2-stable and 0.4.3.1-alpha? 18:12:31 Should we do the backports before we put out the next 0.4.1 and 0.4.2 stable this week? 18:12:59 IMO we should only do safe necessary and well-tested ones. 18:13:19 we can do ones that are less necessary if they are safe and well-tested 18:13:30 we can do ones that are less well-tested if they are absolutely necessary and safe 18:13:33 etc 18:13:54 do you want to coordinate with teor, they write over signal, on whether something has to be done this week before releases? 18:14:05 ok. 18:14:15 #action nickm coordinates with teor over signal about backports 18:14:32 yeah 18:14:53 ok, i think that was all on that item. the next one is about getting more mainline mergers. teor is interested in getting more master mergers 18:15:16 i'm still up for it, but it wont be until middle of february i think before i'm gonna get involved with that 18:15:26 fwiw i was away from reviews/merges for the past weeks, but now im back 18:15:55 ah, true 18:16:04 but agreed we need more mergers anyhow 18:16:15 i don't know if it's because things are queing up or if it's just a general thing that it is good if more people can do more things? 18:16:18 i'd assume the latter 18:16:38 latter I believe yes 18:16:47 we don't have huge backlogs of merge ready stuff at all 18:17:19 atm we dont indeed 18:17:32 sweet 18:17:43 ok, catalyst have an item and requests some debugging help: 18:17:44 Should we backport all the fixes that we tested in 0.4.2-stable and 0.4.3.1-alpha? 18:17:48 err 18:17:50 #qubeslife 18:17:53 - anyone who's familiar with either gcc or clang AddressSanitizer/LeakSanitizer want to help troubleshoot why it's not reporting leaks? 18:17:56 there 18:18:17 I can try 18:18:29 are there repro instructions? 18:18:33 it's working for me... 18:18:43 nickm: we can talk after the meeting 18:18:47 great 18:18:59 cool 18:19:07 does anybody else have anything they want to chat about this week? 18:19:38 "not i" said the duck 18:19:57 it seems good 18:19:59 :-D 18:20:01 cool! 18:20:03 thanks all 18:20:05 #endmeeting