Sheesh, it takes a lot longer to write these notes up for the list than it does to actually attend the dev chat.
in attendance: Oleksandr, Zooko (scribe), David-Sarah, Randall "ClashTheBunny" Mason, Brian (late—one lash), Tony (late—one lash) not in attendance: Andrew (ABSENT—two lashes) sort-of-in-attendance (on the IRC channel): a lot of folks Agenda: Tahoe-LAFS v1.10 (Nuts and Bolts) SUMMARY: This was awesome. We got lots of tickets closed, or at least pushed forward a step or two. This was the most productive hour of ticket-closing work ever. We're going to do it again next week! If you like doing code-review and writing unit tests, you should join us. DETAILS: You can see also use the Trac Timeline: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/timeline ClashTheBunny has some patches for IPv6 for Tahoe-LAFS and Foolscap (#867), and has some tests of them but needs more thorough tests. However, we didn't look at that this time, because we focused on tickets for Tahoe-LAFS v1.10. Nejucomo said on IRC that he wasn't going to get around to manually verifying that the bug we fixed in ticket #1679 was the same as the bug he reported. I decided to just close the ticket for the following reasons: there *is* a bug that we understand, there is a fix which is clear, there is a unit test that exercises the bug that is red without the fix and green with the fix, and The Dod manually verified that it fixed the problem in practice for him. The only reason we've left the ticket open waiting for Nejucomo to test is in case Nathan actually has a *different* bug than this one. But we don't need to keep the ticket open for that eventuality. ClashTheBunny did design review on #1732. He approved the design and made good comments that showed that he actually had thought about it. Subsequently Zooko added another design question and assigned it to Brian for design re-re-re-review. We looked at #1926. It is a blocker because it makes the SFTP frontend incompatible with the current stable release of Twisted. However it is closed as a duplicate of #1525 because the improvement in #1525 would remove the incompatibility. We briefly considered kludging it by requiring people to install an older Twisted, but instead decided to fix it the good way. David-Sarah had already implemented the fix to #1525 but there was something wrong with the unit test. NEWFLASH! This just in! As we were going to press, David-Sarah posted on #1525 a comment that they are currently working on it. We discussed #1767. David-Sarah had an idea for how to make the implementation simple, by incrementing the server-wide counter once for each service. Brian will work on it. It and #1732 are the two blockers that require new code to be written before we release Tahoe-LAFS v1.10. We closed #1484 as fixed. Yay! #1746 is finished, reviewed, and ought to go into Tahoe-LAFS v1.10, but I can't figure out how to merge it into master using git. I don't understand how to use git very well, since I've only been using it on a daily basis for a little more than two years now... #1812 was already applied, but there was something wrong with it according to Brian. Do we need to fix that as a blocker for 1.10 release? We agreed to drop support for Python 2.5 and therefore for CentOS 5. In the last few minutes of the hangout, we agreed that next week's hangout will be another Nuts And Bolts like this one, hopefully bringing Tahoe-LAFS v1.10 close to completion. Brian will work on #1767. Someone (maybe Zooko??) will work on #1732. Then we briefly mentioned the possibility of switching from a "semantic versioning" style version number, to a YEAR.RELEASE_COUNT version number like Twisted does. So instead of Tahoe-LAFS v1.10, this might be Tahoe-LAFS v13.0. Then if there is another release in 2013, that would be Tahoe-LAFS v13.1. We also considered leaving it alone for the "v1.10" release, and switching styles for the next release. Currently we use the "1." in "Tahoe-LAFS v1.10" to mean that it has backward-compatibility with all of the stable Tahoe-LAFS releases since v1.0 (released March 25, 2008: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/Doc#TheParadeofReleaseNotes ). I'm not sure that's accurate. While we have never deliberately violated that goal, and we are not aware of any change that we've made which would break that compatibility, on the other hand we don't have automated or manual testing of backwards compatibility. Anyway, I suspect that there aren't any users of Tahoe-LAFS versions older than 1.9.2: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/OSPackages tickets mentioned in this letter: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/867# use ipv6 https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1484# CLI: overzealous quoting of error messages https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1525# SFTP: handle download failures correctly; remove use of IFinishableConsumer https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1679# Nondeterministic NoSharesError for direct CHK download in 1.8.3 and 1.9.1 https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1732# consider changes to webapi "Move" API before release https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1746# write test for anti-Ubuntu-crash-reporter exception-catching code https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1767# update Announcement "timestamp": sequence number? https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1812# parse_abbreviated_size doesn't accept T for terabytes (and other quibbles with the regex it uses) https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1926# Failed to load application: cannot import name IFinishableConsumer -- Regards, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn Founder, CEO, and Customer Support Rep https://LeastAuthority.com _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
