19:04:02 #startmeeting 19:04:02 Meeting started Thu Mar 1 19:04:02 2018 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:04:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:04:18 #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator 19:04:40 Randolf: yes, like that, hash mirroring (TM) 19:04:53 #topic high priority for review 19:04:53 * Randolf smiles 19:05:15 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 19:05:29 a few of the PRs really need rebase 19:06:40 but we managed to merge a few this week, so if you have nothing on that list yet, proposals are welcome 19:06:41 many people at FC18 right now, btw 19:06:42 I have purposely NOT rebased PR #12501 fully yet because it turned into some discussion about the "virtual size" of transactions. 19:06:45 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12501 | [qt] Improved "custom fee" explanation in tooltip by randolf · Pull Request #12501 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:07:00 I hoped that last week it would be an easy one to complete, but turns out this wasn't so straight-forward. 19:07:28 there are certainly valid reasons to not rebase something 19:07:34 I think that PR #12567 can probably be closed, but a few more people might want to take a quick look at it first. 19:07:37 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12567 | util: Print timestamp strings in logs using ISO 8601 formatting by practicalswift · Pull Request #12567 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:07:55 I think that PR #12546 should be merged. 19:07:57 on the other hand, if something runs out of sync with current master, then reviewing it in the current state makes less sense 19:07:57 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12546 | [docs] Minor improvements to Compatibility Notes by randolf · Pull Request #12546 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:07:58 #11383 is probably ready for merge, just only one recent utACK 19:08:02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr · Pull Request #11383 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:08:04 (Sorry, I meant "merged" earlier rather than "closed.") 19:08:45 12501 isn't on that list, should it be? 19:08:53 I suspect that PR 12501 probably needs more peer-review and discussion. 19:09:00 luke-jr: great! 19:09:24 luke-jr: looks like jonasschnelli has some, unreplied to comments there 19:10:04 it's fine to say that you're leaving them for a later PR, but please do reply to ereview comments 19:10:13 Okay. 19:10:40 hi. 19:11:15 hi 19:11:54 btw i am still seeking topic suggestions (either stuff you want to talk about, or you want other people to talk about) for next week's event. 19:12:26 speaking of which, we should decide about next weekly meeting timing since i imagine some folks will be traveling 19:12:31 #action send kanzure further topic suggestions 19:12:47 right, I'll definitely not be there next week 19:13:10 will be travellingback at that time 19:13:15 wasn't aware we'd lose a bunch of people to fc18 but makes sense. 19:13:27 regarding multiwallet, there are other details that can be left for other pulls 19:13:27 indeed, apparently same problem this week 19:13:33 sorry! 19:13:51 sipa: next time, schedule FC so it doesn't conflict. 19:13:57 haha! 19:13:57 :p 19:14:00 * Randolf laughs 19:14:02 so I think we should skip next week's IRC meeting 19:14:10 ack 19:14:13 Ack. 19:14:23 we can move it forward if we want.. since a lot of folks in same room. but it's sort of redundant. 19:14:41 right 19:15:05 sgtm 19:15:18 I suggest we have kanzure transcribe RL stuff to #bitcoin-core-dev in real time 19:15:31 that's okay with me since roasbeef wont be there 19:15:34 lol 19:15:39 (i love him tho) 19:15:43 hehe 19:15:56 oh what did I miss? 19:16:03 1/4th of the meeting 19:16:13 I suggest we have kanzure transcribe RL stuff to #bitcoin-core-dev in real time 19:16:13 that's okay with me since roasbeef wont be there 19:16:29 not much is going on, everyone is at FC apparently 19:16:50 end early and spend 45 minutes on #11383 ? :D 19:16:54 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr · Pull Request #11383 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:16:58 but if anyone has a topic they like to discuss with the three of us, please mention 19:17:03 btcdrak: I suggested merging PRs 12567 and 12546 and luke-jr suggested merging PR 11383. 19:17:31 wumpus, luke-jr, sipa, btcdrak, kanzure, achow101, Randolf, promag = 8 19:17:35 hi 19:17:36 12546 is obvious / documentation only 19:17:48 Yes. 19:18:13 Randolf: well, it'd be nice to get a few more utACKs first (although I've shipped 11383 in Knots so long that I doubt there's any problems to find left) 19:19:24 I'll take a look at 11383 19:20:28 luke-jr: I'll review again 19:21:28 wumpus: In PR 12501 an issue arose about the "virtual size" of the transaction. I'm thinking that it would probably be best to not mention this so as not to confuse end-users, but there's one person who's in favour of specifying this. If there's a link to documentation that can get into the 19:22:36 "See also," not see all. :) 19:22:36 details of the virtual size of the transaction, then I'm also thinking that including the link in the tooltip as a "see all" item should keep everyone happy? 19:23:16 Randolf: the value being configured is fundamentally tied to virtual size. I don't think it's avoidable. 19:23:36 it's most important to be correct / complete 19:23:53 "adjusted size" might be more understandable in plain English 19:24:06 but there's no precedent for calling it that yet 19:24:24 in general, even if certain terms might confuse users, it's better to mention something than leave it out and say the wrong thing 19:24:28 but yeah, virtual size is confusing 19:24:29 Okay. I want the tooltip to be correct without adding confusion. 19:24:54 weight-adjusted size? 19:25:09 but calling it differently might be even worse 19:25:10 I don't know 19:25:25 (as you can't google it then!) 19:26:22 it's really a different way of speaking of the weight, not the size 19:26:28 From a plain-English perspective, "weight-adjusted size" is much nicer, but that point about it being a new term is an important one because then it needs to be in the full documentation too. 19:26:28 I can't think up a nice way to call it 19:26:57 Originally, I didn't have the word "virtual" in there. 19:27:04 I suggest we just stick to "virtual size" until some English genius thinks up a better name 19:27:07 if there are new terms there's a good rationale to only use a single term for it, not make up multiple terms just because they sound nicer 19:27:18 I agree. 19:27:55 so if it is virtual size, I think we need to bite the bullet and simply use that 19:28:34 any other topics? 19:28:37 Alright. So, if the current wording in most recent commit - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12501/commits/a6a800cc4b3c1cbc4e5199563e2de1b5228ff9e2 - looks fine, then I'll go ahead and rebase. 19:29:29 lgtn 19:29:30 lgtm* 19:29:48 yes 19:29:53 #endmeeting