Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of org/meetings/2014WinterDevMeeting/notes/TorRoadmapAndProcess


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 25, 2014, 2:03:04 PM (6 years ago)
Author:
lunar
Comment:

formatting

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • org/meetings/2014WinterDevMeeting/notes/TorRoadmapAndProcess

    v1 v2  
     1= little-t tor roadmap and process =
    12
    2 Tor Roadmap
     3'''Abstract:''' What will the future of little-t tor be? What's working in little-t tor development?  What isn't?
     4
     5== Minutes ==
    36
    47Opening Comments
    58- process of developing Tor has been crisis driven, funding driven, implementation
    69- incoming patch review has been sporadic
    7 - process of intenral code review has been based on begging
    8 - What are the lreally important things for little-t Tor for process of dev over 6-12 months?
     10- process of internal code review has been based on begging
     11- What are the really important things for little-t Tor for process of dev over 6-12 months?
    912
    1013Most important ideas
     
    1619- Improve process for reviewing new patches b/c new patches = new developers
    1720
    18 Are you open to adding new libraries, tools for code review process?
    19 something like Gerritt, happy to use, if someone can install; more convenient than reading code by hand
     21Are you open to adding new libraries, tools for code review process? Something like Gerritt, happy to use, if someone can install; more convenient than reading code by hand
    2022
    21 Any work to address key length, crypto library depencies etc?
    22 Work has been done on improving key length, ECC support for forward secrecy; look towards quantum computing
     23Any work to address key length, crypto library depencies etc? Work has been done on improving key length, ECC support for forward secrecy; look towards quantum computing
    2324
    2425- 100 year crypto problem is one that might be worthwhile to tackle, to have a roadmap in 10 or 20 years down the road
    2526- There is no roadmap! Things that only exist as vague intentions and desires, in peoples heads... should they be turned into a roadmap?
    26 
    2727- It is beneficial to identity important things to do (i.e. see "most important ideas" above)
    2828- Roadmap would be very important to have for funding of direct researcher and development on Tor
    2929- Need more C developers!
    3030
    31 Need to make improvements to code review to improve participation, usability... what about Github?
    32 Github is possible as a code review tool, though pull request system is tricky, especially if not synced with Trac tickets
     31Need to make improvements to code review to improve participation, usability... what about Github? Github is possible as a code review tool, though pull request system is tricky, especially if not synced with Trac tickets
    3332
    3433- problem with Tor hosted projects is that you need an @torproject.org/trac account; github is more social, encourages interaction
    3534
    3635What is code review?
     36
    3737Process to ensure that random code does not get integrated just by one person; have someone else review, look for side effects, is it testable?
    3838
    3939Can we establish a code review process?
     40
    4041Ask each for code reviews when we are not crazy busy!
     42
    4143Ian G says "read the patch entirely. reason about the context of the patch. reason of the context in context of what we are trying to accomplish. then think about if they do them well."
    4244
     
    8183- Erinn will setup Gerritt and new Trac states for merge
    8284- Setup core review page on the wiki or in doc/hacking
    83 
    84 
    85 
    86 
    87 
    88