12016-01-07T00:01:32  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  22016-01-07T00:05:07  *** cryptopeddler has quit IRC
  32016-01-07T00:09:29  *** cryptopeddler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  42016-01-07T00:13:44  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52016-01-07T00:19:26  *** cryptopeddler has quit IRC
  62016-01-07T00:22:46  *** cryptopeddler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  72016-01-07T00:48:18  *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
  82016-01-07T00:53:52  *** bsm117532 is now known as Guest38423
  92016-01-07T00:54:43  *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102016-01-07T01:19:42  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 112016-01-07T01:20:14  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 122016-01-07T01:36:22  *** cryptopeddler has quit IRC
 132016-01-07T01:39:04  *** cryptopeddler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142016-01-07T01:44:34  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 152016-01-07T01:48:29  *** cryptopeddler has quit IRC
 162016-01-07T01:50:17  *** cryptopeddler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 172016-01-07T02:19:28  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 182016-01-07T03:01:05  *** cryptopeddler has quit IRC
 192016-01-07T03:02:53  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202016-01-07T03:05:32  *** cryptopeddler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 212016-01-07T03:10:12  *** dcousens has quit IRC
 222016-01-07T03:16:50  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 232016-01-07T03:22:38  *** dcousens has quit IRC
 242016-01-07T03:25:49  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 252016-01-07T03:28:24  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
 262016-01-07T03:33:33  *** d_t has quit IRC
 272016-01-07T03:36:17  *** dcousens has quit IRC
 282016-01-07T03:44:49  *** brg444 has quit IRC
 292016-01-07T03:50:07  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 302016-01-07T04:00:27  *** dcousens has quit IRC
 312016-01-07T04:15:24  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322016-01-07T04:15:55  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 332016-01-07T04:29:55  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
 342016-01-07T04:35:11  *** AtashiCon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 352016-01-07T05:00:04  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 362016-01-07T05:00:34  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 372016-01-07T05:05:10  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 382016-01-07T05:50:11  *** davec has quit IRC
 392016-01-07T05:50:41  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 402016-01-07T06:35:33  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 412016-01-07T06:36:38  *** cryptopeddler has quit IRC
 422016-01-07T06:38:05  *** cryptopeddler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432016-01-07T06:42:00  *** Yoghur114 has quit IRC
 442016-01-07T06:42:29  *** Yoghur114 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 452016-01-07T06:45:12  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 462016-01-07T06:45:12  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 472016-01-07T06:53:03  *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
 482016-01-07T06:53:22  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
 492016-01-07T06:53:41  *** lightningbot` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502016-01-07T07:07:49  *** d_t has quit IRC
 512016-01-07T07:08:39  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 522016-01-07T07:11:55  *** trippysalmon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 532016-01-07T07:12:44  *** d_t has quit IRC
 542016-01-07T07:24:22  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 552016-01-07T07:30:02  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
 562016-01-07T07:30:37  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 572016-01-07T07:39:51  <GitHub142> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #7307: [RPC, Wallet] Move RPC dispatch table registration to wallet/ code (master...2016/01/corewallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7307
 582016-01-07T07:42:43  <jonasschnelli> morcos: "Need a manual way to forget transactions that are no longer in the mempool",... any rough concept on that?
 592016-01-07T07:43:10  <jonasschnelli> Was that the discussion where we mentioned a RPC call like "archivetransaction"?
 602016-01-07T07:56:14  <GitHub119> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/605c17844ea3...41f1a3e99bfa
 612016-01-07T07:56:15  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master 76ac35f Cory Fields: c++11: detect and correct for boost builds with an incompatible abi...
 622016-01-07T07:56:15  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master 89f71c6 Cory Fields: c++11: don't throw from the reverselock destructor...
 632016-01-07T07:56:16  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master 57d2f62 Cory Fields: c++11: CAccountingEntry must be defined before use in a list...
 642016-01-07T07:56:24  <GitHub56> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7302: C++11 build/runtime fixes (master...c++11-prep) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7302
 652016-01-07T08:08:50  *** d_t has quit IRC
 662016-01-07T08:09:37  <btcdrak> I love how wumpus says good morning. *merge*
 672016-01-07T08:12:21  <GitHub110> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/41f1a3e99bfa...de9e5ea75e46
 682016-01-07T08:12:21  <GitHub110> bitcoin/master 5e10922 Luke Dashjr: Combine common error strings for different options so translations can be shared and reused
 692016-01-07T08:12:22  <GitHub110> bitcoin/master de9e5ea Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7257...
 702016-01-07T08:12:31  <GitHub163> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7257: Combine common error strings for different options so translations can be shared and reused (master...reduce_opt_ts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7257
 712016-01-07T08:17:12  <GitHub159> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/de9e5ea75e46...d964b5bb1a1c
 722016-01-07T08:17:13  <GitHub159> bitcoin/master fa0765d MarcoFalke: [qa] Cleanup wallet.py test...
 732016-01-07T08:17:14  <GitHub159> bitcoin/master fa14d99 MarcoFalke: [qa] check if wallet or blochchain maintenance changes the balance
 742016-01-07T08:17:14  <GitHub159> bitcoin/master fa33d97 MarcoFalke: [walletdb] Add missing LOCK() in Recover() for dummyWallet
 752016-01-07T08:17:23  <GitHub11> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7229: [qa] wallet: Check if maintenance changes the balance (master...MarcoFalke-2015-rpcWalletMaintenance) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7229
 762016-01-07T08:19:31  <GitHub29> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.12: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1ed938b5fe4f5760b516eaec3358f13003830907
 772016-01-07T08:19:31  <GitHub29> bitcoin/0.12 1ed938b MarcoFalke: [qa] wallet: Check if maintenance changes the balance...
 782016-01-07T08:24:34  <GitHub132> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d964b5bb1a1c...554156093800
 792016-01-07T08:24:35  <GitHub132> bitcoin/master fa3c7e6 MarcoFalke: [wallet] Add regression test for vValue sort order
 802016-01-07T08:24:36  <GitHub132> bitcoin/master faf538b MarcoFalke: [trivial] Merge test cases and replace CENT with COIN
 812016-01-07T08:24:36  <GitHub132> bitcoin/master 5541560 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7293...
 822016-01-07T08:24:44  <GitHub49> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7293:  [wallet] Add regression test for vValue sort order  (master...Mf1601-wallet-vValue) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7293
 832016-01-07T08:25:59  <GitHub99> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.12: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ff9b610026067755b1d766c13a212734d96757ea
 842016-01-07T08:25:59  <GitHub99> bitcoin/0.12 ff9b610 MarcoFalke: [wallet] Add regression test for vValue sort order...
 852016-01-07T08:41:39  *** p15 has quit IRC
 862016-01-07T08:47:16  *** adam3us1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 872016-01-07T08:47:34  *** adam3us has quit IRC
 882016-01-07T08:48:08  *** adam3us1 has quit IRC
 892016-01-07T08:48:56  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 902016-01-07T08:50:10  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912016-01-07T09:02:46  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
 922016-01-07T09:02:47  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 932016-01-07T09:11:49  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
 942016-01-07T09:27:02  *** arowser has quit IRC
 952016-01-07T09:27:27  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962016-01-07T09:34:50  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 972016-01-07T09:42:25  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 982016-01-07T10:02:37  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 992016-01-07T10:02:48  *** p15_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002016-01-07T10:05:39  *** p15 has quit IRC
1012016-01-07T10:12:41  *** kdfjksdfsdf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022016-01-07T10:15:32  <jtimon> wumpus I'm still on vacation and kind of waiting on #7091 before continuing with the "document-with-words-and-pictures" I promised to some people, but...what is the "right time for refactors and moveonlies"? I really don't want to miss it for the consensus encapsulation moveonly again
1032016-01-07T10:15:33  <jtimon> I mean something like this https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/f8c34f27d4020880647cbdbafad70793882cef79 (after #7287 )
1042016-01-07T10:15:33  <jtimon> it was supposed to be after major version forks, right? or is it after the major released is actually done (to avoid interfering with backports)?
1052016-01-07T10:36:07  *** blur3d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062016-01-07T10:41:13  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072016-01-07T10:56:25  *** berndj has quit IRC
1082016-01-07T10:58:20  *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092016-01-07T10:58:52  <GitHub189> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/554156093800...7b0a9a804004
1102016-01-07T10:58:53  <GitHub189> bitcoin/master 6cd198f Marcel Krüger: Removed comment about IsStandard for P2SH scripts...
1112016-01-07T10:58:53  <GitHub189> bitcoin/master 7b0a9a8 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7266...
1122016-01-07T10:58:57  *** berndj has quit IRC
1132016-01-07T10:58:57  <GitHub11> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7266: Removed comment about IsStandard for P2SH scripts (master...zauguin-patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7266
1142016-01-07T11:00:03  *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152016-01-07T11:00:24  *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162016-01-07T11:21:36  *** berndj has quit IRC
1172016-01-07T11:22:01  *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182016-01-07T11:23:28  *** berndj has quit IRC
1192016-01-07T11:23:57  *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202016-01-07T11:25:02  *** berndj has quit IRC
1212016-01-07T11:25:27  *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222016-01-07T11:25:33  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232016-01-07T11:27:04  *** adam3us has quit IRC
1242016-01-07T11:29:41  *** BashCo has quit IRC
1252016-01-07T11:30:12  *** berndj has quit IRC
1262016-01-07T11:30:28  *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272016-01-07T12:05:05  <MarcoFalke> cfields, is depends using `reference_datetime` (from gitian), another fake time or no at all?
1282016-01-07T12:20:23  *** p15_ has quit IRC
1292016-01-07T12:22:13  <GitHub126> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7b0a9a804004...b1cf0058d9b3
1302016-01-07T12:22:13  <GitHub126> bitcoin/master faf3299 MarcoFalke: [qt] Intro: Display required space...
1312016-01-07T12:22:14  <GitHub126> bitcoin/master b1cf005 Jonas Schnelli: Merge pull request #7298...
1322016-01-07T12:22:23  <GitHub141> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #7298: [qt] Intro: Display required space (master...Mf1601-qtDataDir) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7298
1332016-01-07T12:25:18  <morcos> jonasschnelli: yes i think its that same thing we discussed in november.  sipa gave me an idea for how to hack it in, i should have something in a few hours.
1342016-01-07T12:26:08  <jonasschnelli> morcos: Okay. Perfect.
1352016-01-07T12:29:16  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362016-01-07T12:53:36  *** blur3d has quit IRC
1372016-01-07T12:58:48  <GitHub122> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #7238: Blocksize: Some small preparations for a blocksize hardfork (master...6526-6625-remainings-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7238
1382016-01-07T13:01:34  <jtimon> sipa see my question to wumpus, do you know when is the right time for refactors/moveonlies? after 0.12 has been forked or after 0.12 has been finally released?
1392016-01-07T13:09:29  <MarcoFalke> jtimon, I think the best time is between 0.12.0-final and 0.13-branchoff. You don't want to conflict any backports, so better wait until 0.12.0 (or even until 0.12.1 is out).
1402016-01-07T13:10:37  <MarcoFalke> If the refactor is not controversial, it should also be backported, imo.
1412016-01-07T13:10:45  *** teward has quit IRC
1422016-01-07T13:11:42  *** dcousens has quit IRC
1432016-01-07T13:12:40  <jtimon> MarcoFalke: I agree on both accounts (refactors before forking and backport disruptive refactors)
1442016-01-07T13:13:31  *** teward has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452016-01-07T13:14:22  <jtimon> but wumpus (and sipa?) think it's better to do them after and I was told to wait for https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/f8c34f27d4020880647cbdbafad70793882cef79 (I just can't remember if they said "wait after 0.12 is branched" or "wait until 0.12 is released")
1462016-01-07T13:15:37  <MarcoFalke> Maybe, "wait after 0.12 is branched" AND "wait until 0.12 is released"? ;)
1472016-01-07T13:18:20  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482016-01-07T13:19:39  *** wumpus has quit IRC
1492016-01-07T13:21:54  *** wumpus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502016-01-07T13:24:22  <jtimon> MarcoFalke: yes, maybe, I just don't want to miss "the big moveonlies window" again like I did on 0.11.99 and 0.12.99...
1512016-01-07T13:26:14  <jtimon> I would interpret that as Bitcoin Core not considering libconsensus or consensus code encapsulation a priority
1522016-01-07T13:27:20  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532016-01-07T13:40:35  *** dcousens has quit IRC
1542016-01-07T13:41:14  <wumpus> jtimon: well priority right now is fix the last minute nits for the 0.12 release
1552016-01-07T13:41:47  <wumpus> and segwit, in which sipa I think included some of your changes
1562016-01-07T13:55:27  <jtimon> wumpus so is it unreasonable for me to expect something like https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/f8c34f27d4020880647cbdbafad70793882cef79 to be merged in the 0.13.99 "refactor window" (whenever that is)?
1572016-01-07T14:01:42  <jtimon> if so, I'm afraid I'll have to step down on the self-assigned task of finishing libconsensus (for my own sanity)
1582016-01-07T14:03:07  <wumpus> e.g.  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6597  is due to be merged, but seems there were some last minute comments
1592016-01-07T14:03:23  <jtimon> I mean, I'll do it on top of 0.12, but I'll stop rebasing and PRing to Bitcoin Core
1602016-01-07T14:03:51  <jtimon> wumpus: #6597 has nothing to do with consensus code encapsulation
1612016-01-07T14:04:22  <wumpus> ok
1622016-01-07T14:04:27  <jtimon> I only have #7287 and #7091 related to libconsensus and open right now
1632016-01-07T14:05:19  <jtimon> so, wumpus, is it unreasonable for me to expect something like https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/f8c34f27d4020880647cbdbafad70793882cef79 to be merged in the 0.13.99 "refactor window" (whenever that is)?
1642016-01-07T14:06:52  <wumpus> yeah we could do some move-only things for 0.13 soon, together with c++11-ication I do expect some code churn anyway
1652016-01-07T14:07:19  <wumpus> that specific commit looks sensible to me, good to have that out of main.cpp
1662016-01-07T14:09:46  <jtimon> great, so when is the "refactor window"? now or after releasing 0.12 ?
1672016-01-07T14:10:49  <wumpus> now - after releasing 0.12, doesn't matter, 0.12 branch is forked off so 0.13/master can have some more intensive/risky changes
1682016-01-07T14:11:28  <jtimon> I see, I thought maybe we didn't wanteed to do that before releasing 0.12 for easier backports
1692016-01-07T14:12:00  <wumpus> nah, that's true, but backporting over move-only isn't that involved
1702016-01-07T14:12:38  <wumpus> if possible I want to tag 0.12.0rc1 tomorrow so 0.12 release isn't far away
1712016-01-07T14:12:43  <jtimon> well, my plan was to do the moveonly after #7287
1722016-01-07T14:13:35  <jtimon> (to avoid needing FormatStateMessage() from consensus/consensus.cpp temporarily)
1732016-01-07T14:13:46  <wumpus> I mean you could say the same for the segwit stuff, moving consensus related files around gives work there, but otoh rebasing that over moveonly isn't going to be rocket science
1742016-01-07T14:14:44  <jtimon> ok, thank you
1752016-01-07T14:16:03  <jtimon> I'll open it soon (among other things, as an alternative to CodeShark's #6774 )
1762016-01-07T14:16:54  <CodeShark> #6747
1772016-01-07T14:17:30  <CodeShark> no moving consensus stuff yet...just the soft fork activation mechanism
1782016-01-07T14:18:13  <CodeShark> making it easier to deploy testnets with specific bips applied
1792016-01-07T14:18:46  <CodeShark> and leaving thr activation mechansm fully open ended
1802016-01-07T14:23:53  <Luke-Jr> wumpus: btw, in case you missed it the other day: I don't plan to do any further rebasing, so just let me know when PRs are ready for merging and I can do the appropriate merge commit
1812016-01-07T14:24:25  <btcdrak> wumpus: just to confirm, dev meeting tonight right? 7pm UTC?
1822016-01-07T14:24:55  <Luke-Jr> right
1832016-01-07T14:31:08  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1842016-01-07T14:32:48  <jtimon> CodeShark: as said I would prefer something like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/401a951a70c666ef65c5d059c8b108c6e49abedb I don't see how #6747 makes it easier to deploy testnets with specific bips applied anyay...
1852016-01-07T14:33:19  <GitHub86> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #7308: [Tests] Eliminate intermittent failures in sendheaders.py (master...fix-sendheaders) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7308
1862016-01-07T14:35:49  <GitHub68> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7309: [0.12] Update release-notes.md (0.12...Mf1601-releaseNotes0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7309
1872016-01-07T14:36:30  <morcos> jonasschnelli: sipa: wumpus: any preference for name of forgettransaction?  forget, abandon, respend, archive, discard, ditch, vacate ? i think i vote for abandon
1882016-01-07T14:36:47  <jtimon> CodeShark: and you really don't need to touch the old softfork stuff to implement bip9, that's actually one of the complains rusty had about your implementation (he didn't in his)
1892016-01-07T14:36:55  <MarcoFalke> or discard
1902016-01-07T14:36:57  <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, +100
1912016-01-07T14:38:25  <morcos> Luke-Jr: jgarzik: I'm much newer at this than most, but someone will need to tell me how I'm supposed to review a PR with merge conflicts and if I just review it off the branch its based off of, how do I know the merge conflicts will be solved properly.
1922016-01-07T14:39:13  <jgarzik> morcos, "merge conflicts solved problem" is by definition a moving target.  Review as checked out from submitted branch.  When it's ready to merge, attend those issues at that time.
1932016-01-07T14:39:26  <morcos> I think it makes much more sense for most patches to be rebased, maybe only not for big long standing branches, of which there are not too many, but then will need to be reviewed twice in my opinion.
1942016-01-07T14:40:36  <jgarzik> morcos, It's a subjective judgement of the distance between submitted branch and currently.  For example:  mempool janitor PR is submitted.  Later, some other major mempool changes are merged into master.  It is fair to ask the author to merge with master.
1952016-01-07T14:40:47  <jtimon> morcos: I'm sure Luke-Jr would be happy to let you rebase his commits if you think it's very important
1962016-01-07T14:41:05  <jgarzik> luke-jr's linked Linus post did a good job of explaining
1972016-01-07T14:41:36  <jgarzik> *fair to ask the author to merge with master on his branch, making his branch current.
1982016-01-07T14:41:39  <jgarzik> (to be clear)
1992016-01-07T14:41:51  <jgarzik> The focus is on the submitted branch
2002016-01-07T14:42:04  <morcos> yes i read linus' arguments and i think they applied to a substantially different work flow than we have on a much more mature code base, but whatever, i defer to wumpus
2012016-01-07T14:42:13  <jtimon> I think it's also fair for an author to get tired of rebasing
2022016-01-07T14:42:21  <MarcoFalke> Especially if there is major merge conflicts, there are different ways to solve them. Shouldn't the merge commit be part of the PR then?
2032016-01-07T14:42:29  <jgarzik> MarcoFalke, yes, correct
2042016-01-07T14:42:37  <jgarzik> That's the ideal workflow
2052016-01-07T14:43:07  <MarcoFalke> jtimon, I don't think there is a difference in merge/rebase in regard to solving conflicts
2062016-01-07T14:44:02  <Luke-Jr> the difference is whether it breaks decentralised development
2072016-01-07T14:44:26  <jtimon> MarcoFalke: unless I'm missing something, Luke-Jris just tired of rebasing and wants to do it only one last time before Bitcoin Core is ready to accept his patch
2082016-01-07T14:44:36  <MarcoFalke> No
2092016-01-07T14:44:49  <jgarzik> jtimon: read what luke-jr just said
2102016-01-07T14:45:29  <jtimon> jgarzik: MarcoFalke Luke-Jr yep, it looks like I'm missing something
2112016-01-07T14:45:52  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg39091.html https://lwn.net/Articles/328436/
2122016-01-07T14:46:02  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: thanks
2132016-01-07T14:48:27  <jtimon> mhmm, I have rebased cfields' commits in the past (although after doing it for several months with no success I gave up)
2142016-01-07T14:49:28  *** rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152016-01-07T14:51:02  <wumpus> morcos: I think I prefer 'archivetransaction'
2162016-01-07T14:51:16  <wumpus> morcos: it sounds the least destructive
2172016-01-07T14:52:21  <wumpus> btcdrak: yes re: meeting
2182016-01-07T14:52:39  <jgarzik> +1 wumpus RE archivetx
2192016-01-07T14:53:40  <wumpus> Luke-Jr: that's up to you, I think rebasing PRs can be useful, I like a linear-ish history, but if you can do an alternative with merges that accomplishes the same that's the same to me...
2202016-01-07T14:53:46  <morcos> wumpus: ok i'm happy to change to whatever people prefer but the reason i didn't go with archive originally was it sounded something like record keeping to me, and didn't indicate that it would have an economic effect.
2212016-01-07T14:54:19  <morcos> of course i guess it doesn't actually have an economic effect, it just changes your guess as to what the economic effect of the tx is so you can double spend
2222016-01-07T14:54:31  <wumpus> morcos: I'd interpret archive as in 'remove from the active set and stash in the archive somewhere', but sure there's more ways to interpret it, the most important is that the RPC is documented
2232016-01-07T14:55:08  <MarcoFalke> What is "the archive somewhere"?
2242016-01-07T14:55:11  <btcdrak> morcos: rusty kindly tested #6564 with both #6312 and #7184 variants so we should make a decision about closing one of those soon.
2252016-01-07T14:55:19  <wumpus> I do think archive can potentially give confusion, e.g. people will think they can archive old transactions as well
2262016-01-07T14:55:34  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: mark it as non-active, but it stays stored in the wallet, hidden
2272016-01-07T14:55:40  <morcos> wumpus: so to be clear the way im thinking about this the tx is still going to appear in your list of txs and everythign and it will still show 0 confirmations, but it will no longer effect the spentness of the txin prevouts
2282016-01-07T14:55:48  <btcdrak> morcos: I can add your diff commit to #6312 or we can close it in favour of #7184 which is cleaner imo
2292016-01-07T14:55:55  <wumpus> morcos: ok
2302016-01-07T14:56:06  <wumpus> morcos: I do think it should no longer be sorted at the top, at least
2312016-01-07T14:56:23  <morcos> wumpus: ha.  ok something else for me to learn about the wallet then
2322016-01-07T14:56:38  <wumpus> but hiding it completely (unless some flag) is fine with me too... it's effectively out of the picture
2332016-01-07T14:57:06  <wumpus> showing it is just confusing, and sorting it at the top gives priority to it
2342016-01-07T14:57:22  <morcos> wumpus: i actually think that is a bit dangerous. it could still be included in a block or coudl prevent a respend from relaying if its in other nodes mempools
2352016-01-07T14:57:24  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362016-01-07T14:57:44  <wumpus> sure it could be included in a block, but in that case it must be shown again like any transaction that's in a block
2372016-01-07T14:57:49  <morcos> wumpus: once we have RBF implemented, i think we'd require that you pass the RBF requirements to the extent you can determine them to respend it
2382016-01-07T14:58:15  <morcos> wumpus: so you may want to be aware that you have this potential double spend out there instead of literally forgetting about it
2392016-01-07T14:58:24  <wumpus> still hiding it when it reached you through a block would indeed be very wrong
2402016-01-07T14:58:45  <wumpus> but is it always 'out there'? what if it was never broadcasted at all?
2412016-01-07T14:58:59  <morcos> wumpus: well i'll probably do the PR first without looking at sorting, just to get something for people to look at anyway
2422016-01-07T14:59:03  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432016-01-07T14:59:16  <MarcoFalke> wumpus, archive means "something is final, I can put it in a box and it won't change" but that is not the case here.
2442016-01-07T14:59:29  <morcos> wumpus: ah! i've been thinking about that.  we are narrowing the number of cases where thats possible i think.  although i guess if you have broadcast off
2452016-01-07T14:59:38  <wumpus> a feature to hide transactions is extremely frequently requested, people get annoyed at all the stale transactions that drift to the top
2462016-01-07T14:59:51  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: well, feel free to propose a better name then
2472016-01-07T14:59:59  <wumpus> I won't partake in bikeshedding
2482016-01-07T15:00:13  <wumpus> +English is not my native language
2492016-01-07T15:00:20  <MarcoFalke> mine neither
2502016-01-07T15:00:29  <MarcoFalke> I think the pull itself is more important
2512016-01-07T15:00:34  <wumpus> absolutely
2522016-01-07T15:00:37  <morcos> ok i'm going with abandon until i here otherwise, back to work
2532016-01-07T15:00:47  <wumpus> morcos: ok
2542016-01-07T15:00:49  <morcos> s/here/hear/ and English is my only language
2552016-01-07T15:01:24  * Luke-Jr regrets English being his only fluent language
2562016-01-07T15:01:51  <morcos> btcdrak: I have a pretty strong preference for #7184, but i really want to hear what sipa thinks before making a decision.
2572016-01-07T15:01:56  <morcos> Luke-Jr: same
2582016-01-07T15:03:39  <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: learn mandarin :)
2592016-01-07T15:09:07  *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602016-01-07T15:21:30  *** bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
2612016-01-07T15:34:55  *** modin has quit IRC
2622016-01-07T15:35:27  *** modin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632016-01-07T15:52:16  *** modin has quit IRC
2642016-01-07T15:52:49  *** _Sam-- has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652016-01-07T15:52:49  *** _Sam-- has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662016-01-07T15:53:16  *** modin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672016-01-07T16:03:09  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2682016-01-07T16:32:35  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
2692016-01-07T16:36:11  *** trippysalmon has quit IRC
2702016-01-07T16:44:41  *** Naphex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712016-01-07T16:44:54  *** Naphex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722016-01-07T16:45:36  *** _Sam-- is now known as Greybits
2732016-01-07T16:46:14  <GitHub180> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #7310: MOVEONLY: Move consensus functions out of main (master...consensus-moveonly-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7310
2742016-01-07T16:52:48  <GitHub59> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #7311: MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain: (master...consensus-pow-moveonly-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7311
2752016-01-07T16:54:23  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762016-01-07T16:56:50  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772016-01-07T16:57:02  <jtimon> wumpus ^^ the moveonly PRs
2782016-01-07T17:01:13  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2792016-01-07T17:03:25  *** trippysalmon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2802016-01-07T17:06:15  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2812016-01-07T17:08:50  <jtimon> regarding #6597 I think sipa is wrong, but as said that's not libconsensus related
2822016-01-07T17:12:11  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832016-01-07T17:17:26  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2842016-01-07T17:31:13  *** trippysalmon has quit IRC
2852016-01-07T17:33:24  <GitHub116> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #7312: Add RPC call abandontransaction (master...forgetstuck) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7312
2862016-01-07T17:37:48  <phantomcircuit> morcos, lol you're super late for 0.12
2872016-01-07T17:40:17  <Luke-Jr> no kidding
2882016-01-07T18:01:37  *** brg444 has quit IRC
2892016-01-07T18:07:50  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2902016-01-07T18:10:00  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
2912016-01-07T18:27:22  *** afk11 has quit IRC
2922016-01-07T18:28:29  <morcos> wumpus: see the weird Travis failure on #7312, something about not being able authenticate windows packages
2932016-01-07T18:28:56  *** Greybits has quit IRC
2942016-01-07T18:30:00  <MarcoFalke> You can change the commit hash of your last commit to trigger travis again. (If no one reviewed your commits, it shouldn't matter)
2952016-01-07T18:30:04  *** cryptopeddler has quit IRC
2962016-01-07T18:30:44  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2972016-01-07T18:30:47  <MarcoFalke> or you can fix the typo in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7312/files#diff-df7d84ff2f53fcb2a0dc15a3a51e55ceR1783
2982016-01-07T18:31:31  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992016-01-07T18:36:06  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3002016-01-07T18:36:45  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012016-01-07T18:37:36  *** murch has quit IRC
3022016-01-07T18:38:01  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032016-01-07T18:47:08  *** Yoghur114_2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3042016-01-07T18:51:02  <Yoghur114_2> this may be too trivial to ask here, but in building the segwit fork - I now appear to require the libevent-dev package, which I didn't have
3052016-01-07T18:51:26  <Yoghur114_2> looking at configure.ac, it appears to have been added as a test in january of last year https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3140ef92493169f1f993312b4add1fb87943c7b4
3062016-01-07T18:52:06  <Yoghur114_2> any clue as to why this is the first time ./configure fails while I've built the project many times since that added test?
3072016-01-07T18:52:33  <Yoghur114_2> on ubuntu 14.04 that is
3082016-01-07T18:55:45  <wumpus> for building master (or anything derived from it) you need libevent-dev it replaces boost asio
3092016-01-07T18:56:13  *** arubi is now known as fIatland
3102016-01-07T18:56:21  *** fIatland is now known as arubi
3112016-01-07T19:00:45  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3122016-01-07T19:02:03  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3132016-01-07T19:04:06  *** JackH has quit IRC
3142016-01-07T19:13:50  <phantomcircuit> Yoghur114_2, libevent-dev has been required since the rpc stuff was changed
3152016-01-07T19:16:23  *** afk11 has quit IRC
3162016-01-07T19:17:02  <Yoghur114_2> what rpc stuff changed? that might explain why my interface has borked
3172016-01-07T19:17:52  <sipa> Yoghur114_2: 0.12 and master use libevent for RPC handling jnstead of boost::asio
3182016-01-07T19:22:28  <Yoghur114_2> aah ok, I get it now - thanks guys
3192016-01-07T19:24:31  <Yoghur114_2> I shall now continue to discover I am too poorly versed at interpreting the actual code :)
3202016-01-07T19:25:39  *** davec has quit IRC
3212016-01-07T19:27:13  <phantomcircuit> Yoghur114_2, please point out what/where you are confused, it's helpful to know where there should be more comments
3222016-01-07T19:29:39  <Yoghur114_2> it isn't the comments, it's me: I'm a Java developer by trade
3232016-01-07T19:29:41  <Yoghur114_2> :)
3242016-01-07T19:30:18  *** Madars has quit IRC
3252016-01-07T19:30:20  <Yoghur114_2> so i'll be having a hard time understanding anything even if it's documented to all hell
3262016-01-07T19:30:31  *** PRab_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3272016-01-07T19:30:58  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
3282016-01-07T19:31:03  *** Arnavion3 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292016-01-07T19:31:06  *** Arnavion3 is now known as Arnavion
3302016-01-07T19:31:37  *** treehug8_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3312016-01-07T19:31:49  *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3322016-01-07T19:31:50  *** treehug8_ has quit IRC
3332016-01-07T19:32:15  *** treehug8_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3342016-01-07T19:34:05  *** aj_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3352016-01-07T19:34:38  *** treehug88 has quit IRC
3362016-01-07T19:38:34  *** modin has quit IRC
3372016-01-07T19:38:34  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
3382016-01-07T19:38:34  *** arowser has quit IRC
3392016-01-07T19:38:34  *** aj has quit IRC
3402016-01-07T19:38:34  *** PRab has quit IRC
3412016-01-07T19:38:34  *** CodeShark has quit IRC
3422016-01-07T19:40:33  *** modin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3432016-01-07T19:41:04  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3442016-01-07T19:44:27  *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3452016-01-07T19:48:15  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
3462016-01-07T19:48:52  *** Greybits has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3472016-01-07T19:49:30  <Yoghur114_2> phantomcircuit: ok I've identified the confusion more precisely (for the record): it was a git thing. What I didn't understand was why a 0.11.2 build didn't trigger this test: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/configure.ac#L717 - which I thought was added january 20th of 2015 according to the history, however, that commit was part of a PR that only got merged into master last september - after master branched off from .11
3482016-01-07T19:49:54  <sipa> Yoghur114_2: we started working on the 0.12 branch nearly a year ago
3492016-01-07T19:50:09  <sipa> 0.11.2 was released from the stable branch
3502016-01-07T19:50:18  <sipa> 0.12 is now about to mature into a release
3512016-01-07T19:51:49  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522016-01-07T19:52:38  <Luke-Jr> cfields: /usr/include/boost/thread/future_error_code.hpp:36:53: error: ‘enum_type’ is not a member of ‘boost::future_errc’
3532016-01-07T19:52:59  <Luke-Jr> this is latest stable boost on Gentoo
3542016-01-07T19:54:02  <cfields> Luke-Jr: thanks, will have a look after meeting
3552016-01-07T19:57:04  *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3562016-01-07T20:01:00  <cfields> Luke-Jr: i can't find any reference to future_error_code.hpp. what boost version?
3572016-01-07T20:01:51  <cfields> (at that path, anyway)
3582016-01-07T20:08:31  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3592016-01-07T20:14:26  *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
3602016-01-07T20:23:55  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3612016-01-07T20:27:39  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3622016-01-07T20:39:40  *** treehug8_ has quit IRC
3632016-01-07T20:40:01  *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3642016-01-07T20:46:24  <Luke-Jr> cfields: 1.56.0-r1
3652016-01-07T20:56:16  *** JackH has quit IRC
3662016-01-07T20:58:19  *** alexpi____ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3672016-01-07T21:00:54  <alexpi____> hji
3682016-01-07T21:01:24  *** alexpi____ has quit IRC
3692016-01-07T21:02:44  <cfields> Luke-Jr: got it, thanks
3702016-01-07T21:02:52  <cfields> Luke-Jr: can you paste the whole nasty error please?
3712016-01-07T21:04:03  <Luke-Jr> cfields: http://codepad.org/a5GoNVqQ
3722016-01-07T21:04:22  <cfields> Luke-Jr: i think i see. looks like we might need the force defs in a few other places
3732016-01-07T21:05:11  <cfields> hmm
3742016-01-07T21:14:39  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
3752016-01-07T21:14:56  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3762016-01-07T21:16:13  <Luke-Jr> MarcoFalke: #7081's conflicts are too trivial for a pre-pull merge.
3772016-01-07T21:18:06  <maaku> harding: as a matter of process, it would have been nice to have more time before merging things like #1194
3782016-01-07T21:18:41  <maaku> putting something significant like this up and then merging three hours later isn't a good idea
3792016-01-07T21:19:45  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
3802016-01-07T21:21:45  <cfields> Luke-Jr: are you compiling in c++11 mode there?
3812016-01-07T21:24:09  <Luke-Jr> cfields: yes
3822016-01-07T21:24:18  <Luke-Jr> it works fine in non-C++11 mode
3832016-01-07T21:24:33  <cfields> do you know if boost was built with c++11?
3842016-01-07T21:24:37  <Luke-Jr> it was not.
3852016-01-07T21:24:41  <Luke-Jr> no major distro builds boost with C++11
3862016-01-07T21:24:42  <cfields> (trying to determine if the test is faulty)
3872016-01-07T21:24:48  <cfields> ok, good
3882016-01-07T21:25:22  <cfields> that looks like a legitimate boost bug, but ofc that seems unlikely
3892016-01-07T21:25:27  <cfields> sec for link
3902016-01-07T21:25:45  <cfields> https://github.com/boostorg/core/commit/9092fde17ed8bf30b2564d884a774134b53ae127
3912016-01-07T21:26:14  *** Madars has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3922016-01-07T21:26:41  <cfields> can you do a quick hack of your local source to check a fix?
3932016-01-07T21:27:11  <Luke-Jr> Bitcoin source or boost?
3942016-01-07T21:27:37  <cfields> boost
3952016-01-07T21:27:54  <Luke-Jr> I'll have to rebuild boost a few times, but I guess so
3962016-01-07T21:28:22  <cfields> i think only changing the header should be enough
3972016-01-07T21:29:11  <cfields> sec for patch
3982016-01-07T21:37:35  <cfields> Luke-Jr: http://pastebin.com/raw/jG5ag45p
3992016-01-07T21:39:26  *** Greybits has quit IRC
4002016-01-07T21:39:55  <cfields> i think just patching boost in-place with that and rebuilding bitcoin should do it, no need to rebuild boost
4012016-01-07T21:43:21  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
4022016-01-07T21:45:40  <Luke-Jr> cfields: http://codepad.org/s4lin37Q
4032016-01-07T21:46:24  <cfields> Luke-Jr: yea, sorry. nuke the first template, they do the same thing
4042016-01-07T21:46:55  <cfields> so just: http://pastebin.com/raw/MC4xJ51H
4052016-01-07T21:50:17  *** aj_ has quit IRC
4062016-01-07T21:50:19  *** Guest87962 has quit IRC
4072016-01-07T21:51:31  *** aj_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4082016-01-07T21:51:31  *** Guest87962 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4092016-01-07T21:53:24  <Luke-Jr> cfields: that leaves me at /usr/include/boost/filesystem/operations.hpp:492: undefined reference to `boost::filesystem::detail::copy_file(boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::copy_option, boost::system::error_code*)'
4102016-01-07T21:53:40  <Luke-Jr> which is bound to be an ABI issue
4112016-01-07T21:54:24  <cfields> hmm, weird. that's the one that this should've fixed
4122016-01-07T21:54:59  <cfields> Luke-Jr: did you autogen/reconfigure ?
4132016-01-07T21:55:33  <Luke-Jr> not since patching the header
4142016-01-07T21:55:41  *** murch has quit IRC
4152016-01-07T21:55:55  <cfields> nm, shouldn't matter anyway. the right things are obviously defined
4162016-01-07T21:55:58  *** treehug88 has quit IRC
4172016-01-07T21:56:00  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4182016-01-07T21:56:41  <cfields> well, one thing at a time...
4192016-01-07T21:56:46  <Luke-Jr> complete rebuild from autogen doesn't have a difference
4202016-01-07T21:56:54  <cfields> i guess i should take that patch upstream
4212016-01-07T21:57:03  <jgarzik> git clean -dfx
4222016-01-07T21:57:07  <jgarzik> when changing deps
4232016-01-07T21:57:44  <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: that would destroy so much data of mine..
4242016-01-07T21:57:50  <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: also, this is using system deps
4252016-01-07T21:57:56  <cfields> though in our case, 1.60 is the only version affected :\
4262016-01-07T21:58:27  <cfields> oh wait
4272016-01-07T21:58:36  <cfields> yea, 1.56. sorry.
4282016-01-07T21:59:58  <Luke-Jr> fwiw, the actual symbol is boost::filesystem::detail::copy_file(boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::copy_option>>>>>>::enum_type<<<<<<<<<<, boost::system::error_code*)
4292016-01-07T22:01:36  <cfields> Luke-Jr: can you see which object it comes from?
4302016-01-07T22:01:55  <Luke-Jr> ?
4312016-01-07T22:04:57  <cfields> hmm, i thought nm would tell you that. sec.
4322016-01-07T22:04:57  *** Greybits has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4332016-01-07T22:08:46  <Luke-Jr> cfields: why are you defining FORCE_BOOST_EMULATED_SCOPED_ENUMS in bitcoin-config.h rather than BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS and BOOST_NO_CXX11_SCOPED_ENUMS ?
4342016-01-07T22:09:57  <cfields> Luke-Jr: because i prefer to only define local things in that header when possible, so that usage is more explicit
4352016-01-07T22:10:01  <Luke-Jr> this is caused by some other header pulling in the relevant header before the latter get defined
4362016-01-07T22:10:26  <Luke-Jr> it's not a local thing, though, it's a boost configuration
4372016-01-07T22:11:03  <cfields> Luke-Jr: i'll admit, i went back and forth on it in this case. looks like you may be right
4382016-01-07T22:13:27  <cfields> Luke-Jr: i don't see a path that would cause it to be included somewhere else first, though
4392016-01-07T22:13:40  <Luke-Jr> cfields: can't assume boost doesn't do it internally..
4402016-01-07T22:14:18  <cfields> Luke-Jr: simple test, comment out the filesystem.hpp include in walletdb.cpp. fails to build as expected for me.
4412016-01-07T22:16:03  <Luke-Jr> confirmed http://codepad.org/uwX0co4G builds..
4422016-01-07T22:17:23  <cfields> Luke-Jr: ok, great. i think you're probably right about the global define.
4432016-01-07T22:17:24  <Luke-Jr> wallet/db.h includes #include <boost/filesystem/path.hpp>
4442016-01-07T22:17:46  <Luke-Jr> this is included from walletdb.h
4452016-01-07T22:17:56  <Luke-Jr> so we also need to include bitcoin-config.h before that
4462016-01-07T22:18:08  <cfields> yup, got it. i grepped for filesystem.hpp and missed it.
4472016-01-07T22:18:17  <Luke-Jr> note that test_bitcoin is hanging
4482016-01-07T22:18:21  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4492016-01-07T22:18:23  <Luke-Jr> nm, it finally finished
4502016-01-07T22:19:42  <cfields> any chance the header patch isn't needed now that things aren't defined two ways?
4512016-01-07T22:21:34  <Luke-Jr> hmm
4522016-01-07T22:21:48  * Luke-Jr testing
4532016-01-07T22:29:13  <Luke-Jr> cfields: seems to work!
4542016-01-07T22:29:43  <cfields> weird
4552016-01-07T22:32:01  <cfields> probably some voodoo wrt template instantiation
4562016-01-07T22:32:06  <cfields> either way, glad that's all it takes :)
4572016-01-07T22:32:40  <cfields> you going to pr it or want me to?
4582016-01-07T22:34:12  <Luke-Jr> go ahead, I just started a bisect
4592016-01-07T22:34:36  <cfields> ok
4602016-01-07T22:34:42  <cfields> thanks for tracking it all down!
4612016-01-07T22:35:13  *** murch has quit IRC
4622016-01-07T22:35:27  <Luke-Jr> cfields: np, thanks for doing all the hard part
4632016-01-07T22:39:47  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
4642016-01-07T22:41:12  <morcos> sipa: wumpus: this has nothing to do with my abandon code, but i discovered in testing.
4652016-01-07T22:42:01  <morcos> what should happen if you have a tx in your mempool that becomes conflicted b/c of a double spend in a block (so its other inputs are now freed to respend, after #7306)
4662016-01-07T22:42:15  <morcos> and then that block gets reorged out and the double spend goes away?
4672016-01-07T22:43:49  <morcos> (i should say i _think_ it has nothing to do with my abandon code)
4682016-01-07T22:47:30  <Luke-Jr> cfields: do you have access to bitcoincore.org?
4692016-01-07T22:47:35  <Luke-Jr> https://bitcoincore.org/depends-sources/sdks/MacOSX10.7.sdk.tar.gz is 403'ing
4702016-01-07T22:47:54  <cfields> Luke-Jr: as intended :)
4712016-01-07T22:47:59  <Luke-Jr> cfields: which breaks Travis..
4722016-01-07T22:48:13  <cfields> hmm, travis should have access
4732016-01-07T22:48:16  <cfields> pr# ?
4742016-01-07T22:48:22  <Luke-Jr> https://travis-ci.org/luke-jr/bitcoin/jobs/100937885
4752016-01-07T22:49:31  <Luke-Jr> *how* should Travis have access? O.o
4762016-01-07T22:50:02  <cfields> Luke-Jr: it's by ip, just a best effort
4772016-01-07T22:50:07  <Luke-Jr> i c
4782016-01-07T22:51:23  <Luke-Jr> well, I guess there's another IP to add in the log..
4792016-01-07T22:52:10  <cfields> Luke-Jr: looking into it
4802016-01-07T23:11:02  <cfields> Luke-Jr: i think that should do it
4812016-01-07T23:20:08  *** Greybits has quit IRC
4822016-01-07T23:32:13  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
4832016-01-07T23:43:16  *** brg444 has quit IRC
4842016-01-07T23:44:53  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4852016-01-07T23:51:11  *** afk11 has quit IRC
4862016-01-07T23:51:51  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev