19:00:12 #startmeeting 19:00:12 Meeting started Thu Nov 5 19:00:12 2020 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:17 hi 19:00:24 hi 19:00:26 #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: achow101 aj amiti ariard bluematt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik 19:00:27 petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild wumpus 19:00:29 hi 19:00:30 hi 19:00:34 still bot-less i see 19:00:37 hi 19:00:39 hi 19:00:39 ahoy 19:00:47 hello 19:01:02 who runs the bot? 19:01:28 aj i think? 19:02:17 it looks like there are no proposed meeting topics for this week, any last minute topic proposals? 19:02:27 hi 19:02:38 what's left before 0.21 fork off? 19:02:42 sipa: review 19:02:45 whether to do #20250 19:02:49 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20250 | Bugfix: RPC/Wallet: Make BTC/kB and sat/B fee modes work sanely by luke-jr · Pull Request #20250 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:02:59 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A0.21.0 19:03:26 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/45 has 16 items 19:03:37 I can rebase (and retitle) it, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort if we don't consider it worth doing 19:04:02 MarcoFalke: eh yes, that link is better, i alrady wondered how it ended up with so little items suddenly 19:04:22 we need to go over the list and decide what is necessary to include in 0.21.0 and what can wait 19:04:22 wumpus: your link excluded PRs :p 19:04:47 Random observation: Cirrus is so much better about starting CI tasks on time compared to Travis. Thanks MarcoFalke! 19:05:11 luke-jr: I still think we should do *something*. Whether that is #20250 or #20305 19:05:13 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20250 | Bugfix: RPC/Wallet: Make BTC/kB and sat/B fee modes work sanely by luke-jr · Pull Request #20250 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:05:14 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20305 | wallet: introduce fee_rate_sat_vb param/option by jonatack · Pull Request #20305 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:05:41 forcing user to use named args with conf_target=0.0003 seems broken 19:05:41 #20234 seems to be controverial and is still in the discussion phase 19:05:44 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20234 | net: dont extra bind for Tor if binds are restricted by vasild · Pull Request #20234 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:06:03 so I think removing the milestone there makes sense 19:06:17 wumpus: Agree 19:06:50 hi 19:06:51 agree too 19:07:08 hi 19:07:13 aj: where bot 19:07:20 #20284 was discussed in the P2P meeting, *something* like it needs to go in to make sure that previous versions don't parse the peers.dat as garbage and insert gerbage addresses 19:07:22 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20284 | addrman: ensure old versions dont parse peers.dat by vasild · Pull Request #20284 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:07:46 will review that one soon 19:08:33 I had removed #20205 from the 0.21.0 milestone but jonaschnelli re-added it 19:08:36 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20205 | wallet: Properly support a wallet id by achow101 · Pull Request #20205 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:08:41 20205 is needed 19:08:43 I think it's also contoversial 19:08:57 wumpus: absolute worst case we'd just not use it 19:08:59 there seems to be no hurry and people differ in opinion whther it's needed at all 19:09:07 wumpus: I didn't know that you have removed it. 19:09:13 the hurry is to not create wallets with a regression 19:09:25 all wallets today have a unique id 19:09:28 jonasschnelli: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20205#issuecomment-718632332 19:09:31 Adding a UUID later leads probably to a number of wallets without unique ids. 19:09:41 luke-jr: yes, but it is only necessary for bdb, it's unclear if it's necessary in general 19:10:06 wumpus: even in doubt (which I don't have anyway), it would still make sense to keep it 19:10:07 in any case it is delaying the split-off 19:10:21 it doesn't have to be, it's trivial to review 19:10:43 it's not like we're ready to split off anyway 19:10:52 #20318 (thanks for catching this last minute) and #20292 are no-brainers 19:10:53 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20318 | build: Ensure source tarball has leading directory name by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #20318 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:10:54 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20292 | test: Fix intermittent feature_taproot issue by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #20292 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:11:29 #19502 has needed rebase for a few days now, that needs to be rebased or removed from the milestone 19:11:32 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19502 | Bugfix: Wallet: Soft-fail exceptions within ListWalletDir file checks by luke-jr · Pull Request #19502 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:11:42 I can reopen my simpler wallet-id PR if 20205 if we want something even easier to review - achow101 didn't like the layer stuff though 19:11:47 #20120 seems mostly test related 19:11:49 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:12:10 meshcollider: I can do that 19:12:13 luke-jr: your pr would have introduced garbage that we would have to keep around forever. it may be simpler, but it definitely is no the correct way 19:12:16 I don't think we should be adding controversial features last minute to accommodate knots, which appears to be the main motivation for 20205 19:12:23 if there's principal issues with the idea of having a unique id, I don't think opening another PR will resolve that 19:12:44 20120 is a bugfix with 3-4 acks 19:13:08 #20120 19:13:09 jnewbery: this isn't adding features, it's NOT removign existing feature 19:13:09 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:13:21 #19502 seems to have reviews and ACKs but needs rebase 19:13:23 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19502 | Bugfix: Wallet: Soft-fail exceptions within ListWalletDir file checks by luke-jr · Pull Request #19502 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:13:35 jonatack: yep 19:14:12 jnewbery: and Core can absolutely make use of it as well, even if review is slower 19:15:21 #20266 is a straightforward bug fix 19:15:23 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20266 | wallet: fix change detection of imported internal descriptors by achow101 · Pull Request #20266 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:15:32 and also ACKed 19:16:09 #18836 has many changes and only an approach ACK yet 19:16:11 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18836 | wallet: upgradewallet fixes and additional tests by achow101 · Pull Request #18836 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:16:34 ugh, apparently some upgrade broke poor lightningbot 19:17:05 wumpus: it has an ACK too 19:17:16 And I am very nearly finished reviewing it 19:17:18 ah no it has two normal ACKs as well 19:17:23 thanks github 19:17:40 descriptor wallets should never have been merged without unique ids, it's a bug that they're missing 19:17:57 heh github the ack hacker 19:18:07 "hidden items" are for games not SCM interfaces 19:19:06 #20153 is a bugfix and has two ACKs 19:19:08 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20153 | wallet: do not import a descriptor with hardened derivations into a watch-only wallet by S3RK · Pull Request #20153 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:19:42 18836 doesn't fix a regression I think, so it is fine to merge or not to merge, depending on review 19:20:30 then there's #18818, which is unnecessary in my opinion, there hasn't been much review otherwise 19:20:33 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18818 | Fix release tarball generated by gitian by luke-jr · Pull Request #18818 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:21:13 so the biggest thing left for 0.21.0 seems to be the RPC unit discussion 19:21:33 18818 is part of 0.20 already 19:21:41 #20305 #20250 19:21:42 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20305 | wallet: introduce fee_rate_sat_vb param/option by jonatack · Pull Request #20305 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:21:44 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20250 | Bugfix: RPC/Wallet: Make BTC/kB and sat/B fee modes work sanely by luke-jr · Pull Request #20250 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:21:50 partially 19:21:54 luke-jr: no, #20318 is 19:21:55 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20318 | build: Ensure source tarball has leading directory name by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #20318 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:22:21 yes, it is part of it, true 19:23:14 20305 contains a bugfix for the send rpc that can be moved to its own pull, if needed. The rest is really easier to do pre-release. Afterward, it would have to be overhauled a bit to support both the overloading and the new param. 19:23:15 The autogen.sh part was controversial and is not a regression-bugfix, so I've removed the milestone 19:23:45 regarding the RPC units it's good not to introduce a RPC inconsistency for a release, so I agree we need to do something there 19:24:10 MarcoFalke: +1 19:24:14 If we don't want to overload conf_target and estimate_mode in these 6 RPCs, better to not release them 19:24:31 than to have to support them and then deprecate them 19:24:37 yes 19:25:10 that would be silly 19:25:59 so that was the motivation, sorry for doing it so late, but the merge yesterday of the PR 11413 follow-ups motivated me to spike on it 19:26:44 MarcoFalke: it is a bugfix for a regression in 0.20, but whatever 19:27:05 luke-jr: Yes, so it is not a regression in 0.21 19:27:49 you're always very quick to call things bugfixes 19:28:05 wumpus: when they actually are, yes 19:29:06 what is the bug here? 19:29:07 in any case we've been over the entire list now--that concludes this topic, happy reviewing 19:29:27 sipa: building goes looking for .git outside of the source tree and uses whatever it finds 19:29:39 ah