Nick Mathewson: > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Matthew Finkel > <matthew.fin...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 11/03/2012 08:38 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote: >> > [...] > >>> Okay, sounds like we've got some enthusiasm. Let's get started. I >>> volunteer to review commits and if people ask me to, and suggest that >>> asking me to review stuff for a while might be a smart idea. I just gave >>> myself commit access to the g...@git-rw.torproject.org repo too, in case >>> that helps. I am not planning to be a primary author here. >> >> Thanks for adding one more thing to your plate! I know Jake can handle >> this but the more eyes we have looking at these initial changes the >> better it'll be. >> >>> >>> Given the amount of people asking us to apply and/or warning us that we >>> mustn't apply particular patches, I'm going to suggest the following >>> principles for a while: >>> * LET'S START MINIMAL. Let's stick to doing only the very major >> bugfixes >>> and obvious fixes for at least the next release or two, so that something >>> usable comes out. >> >> Agreed. To be honest, I haven't really looked at the code too much, so >> I'll start diving into that in a bit. (If there isn't one already...I >> haven't checked) Can we get a trac component added so we can track >> progress and such? > > > Done. At some point we should migrate issues from google code, but IMO > that's best done once we have something nontrivial to show for our efforts. >
I'm on the google code project, I'd like to close out each of the issues and open new issues on Tor's trac. That will allow us to ensure each reporter will receive a desired response. > >>> * NO ARCHITECTURAL ASTRONAUTICS. I'm always tempted when I come to a >>> codebase for the first time to refactor the heck out of it. Let's avoid >>> doing that till we have a little experience with this codebase. There >>> isn't all that much here: let's >> >> Yes...let's! :) >> >> Was there supposed to be more to that sentence? > > > Yeah; sometimes I start a sentence, then I think of something to write > elsewhere and start another sentence, but then by the time I'm done with > that one I don't remember the first sentence any more, so it > > That one should end with "There isn't all that much code here; let's make > sure we understand it pretty thoroughly before we complexify it in the name > of some half-glimpsed vision." > Agreed. > > >>> * LOVE MEANS GET TESTED. If at all possible, we should make this >> codebase >>> easier to test (right now it wants you to install before testing), and >>> improve the coverage of the tests so that (if as people suspect) we're >>> likely to break things on one platform when we fix them on another, we >> can >>> at least find out fast whether a patch works everywhere. >>> >> >> Certainly sounds like a good idea. I'm going to have to familiarize >> myself with some of the other *nix platforms it does/should support. >> Just looking through the current issues on google code, for example, I >> don't know the internals of OSX well enough *yet* to know if [1] is even >> possible. But once we've compiled a list of all the current critical >> patches, Debian and others (assuming such a list doesn't exist already), >> then we start applying, testing, revising, etc. :) >> >> [1] https://code.google.com/p/torsocks/issues/detail?id=41 > > > Hm. Supposedly, it's _supposed_ to work on OSX. It has a lot of code for > OSX support. I just tried it with curl on my osx laptop, and it seemed to > work okay. > It should work on OS X and if it doesn't, we likely have OS X related bugs. :) All the best, Jake _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
