On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Georg Koppen gk@torproject.org wrote:
Hi Georg,
Thanks for looking through the list! I addressed each of your points below. (Please see my questions below about 14 and 20.)
- According to Richard the patch for #23016 does not need uplift.
Oops, I remember he said that now. Fixed.
- I am not sure whether we want to uplift #21431. I think we can leave
it as "no uplift" for now.
OK, tagged is tbb-no-uplift-60
- f4dd994 could be "no uplift" right now.
Ditto.
- #21907: "no uplift". There won't be an option to build with GTK2
anymore for ESR 60.
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.
- #21849: "no uplift" for now I think. See: bugs 1183318 and 1188657
for the Mozilla discussion.
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift-60.
- Not sure if "uplifted" means "we are done here". If so, the patch for
#5741 is in the wrong category. See: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/21611#comment:5
I opened a new ticket for that.
- #14970: "no uplift".
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.
- 5e2ac8a is already uplifted.
Actually, I'm not 100% sure the fix they made is the same fix. So I'm slightly nervous about marking it as uplifted. I have a NEEDINFO on bmo to look at it more closely.
- #13252: I am inclined to say "no uplift" as this patch only exists
because we need to ship an own bundle (which we don't want to do if we are done with our Firefox fork).
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.
- #13379: probably "no uplift" (for now at least). At any rate we'd
need to investigate first what we still need to carry over to ESR 60 here, given that https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1105689 got fixed.
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift-60.
- #21724: "no uplift", the reasoning is the same as in 10).
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.
- #18912: seems worth trying to uplift.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1434660
- #19121: it seems this is WONTFIX for Mozilla right now? I guess we
keep it and make our argument later again? Or we argue along the lines of 10) and bite the bullet.
I looked at our discussion yesterday but I don't really understand the what our patch is fixing. What's the advantage in doing a separate hash check if there is a signature verification (which presumably includes a hash check anyway)?
Tagging as tbb-no-uplift-60
- #18900: "uplift" according to
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1159090#c4 I guess.
I opened https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1434666
- #11641: "no uplift", the reasoning is the same as in 10).
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.
- #9173: I am not sure but after skimming over it, it seems like "no
uplift" with reasoning like in 10)?
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.
- #18995: Seems worth uplifting to me (in case Mozilla does not have
similar test already).
I opened https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1434772
- #3875: "no uplift" right now. I am more and more convinced we need a
new patch for this idea (if at all) as the current one seems to be wrong. See: #19910 and above all dcf's amazing https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/24432#comment:19.
Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.
- #5282: "no uplift". The whole pipelining code is gone and Mike is
fine having our patch removed in that wake, too.
OK! Shall I remove it from my TBB-ESR60 branch? Also tagged as tbb-no-uplift.
- #16488: "no uplift" yet at least. We don't even have a proper patch
ready right now: see #22564 for instance.
I took another look at #22564 and I think there is some hope of uplifting after we complete it. So I opened https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1434706 for now.
Do all new patches somehow block the META Tor uplift bug? (e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1432905? Shouldn't that block 1433504 at least?)
Good point -- I'll work on blocking the meta_tor bug. And you're right about the ProxyBypass depending on 1432905 as well.
Arthur