1 2016-04-21T00:01:26  *** PaulCape_ has quit IRC
  2 2016-04-21T00:11:54  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  3 2016-04-21T00:13:00  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  4 2016-04-21T00:25:19  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2016-04-21T00:25:57  *** jtimon has quit IRC
  6 2016-04-21T00:37:56  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2016-04-21T00:38:49  *** mr_burdell has quit IRC
  8 2016-04-21T00:38:49  *** harding has quit IRC
  9 2016-04-21T00:39:22  *** LeMiner2 has quit IRC
 10 2016-04-21T00:39:23  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 11 2016-04-21T00:39:23  *** TD-Linux has quit IRC
 12 2016-04-21T00:39:23  *** davec has quit IRC
 13 2016-04-21T00:39:23  *** nkuttler has quit IRC
 14 2016-04-21T00:39:39  *** baldur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2016-04-21T00:39:47  *** windsok_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 16 2016-04-21T00:39:55  *** windsok has quit IRC
 17 2016-04-21T00:40:36  *** harding has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2016-04-21T00:41:32  *** mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2016-04-21T00:44:55  *** TD-Linux has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2016-04-21T00:46:17  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2016-04-21T01:03:35  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 22 2016-04-21T01:06:49  *** nhancm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2016-04-21T01:20:57  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2016-04-21T01:27:42  *** nhancm has quit IRC
 25 2016-04-21T01:36:34  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 26 2016-04-21T01:38:07  *** LeMiner2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2016-04-21T01:38:19  *** nkuttler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2016-04-21T01:47:43  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
 29 2016-04-21T01:50:06  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 30 2016-04-21T02:00:53  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
 31 2016-04-21T02:01:29  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 32 2016-04-21T02:12:29  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2016-04-21T02:13:32  *** droark has quit IRC
 34 2016-04-21T02:14:48  *** molz has quit IRC
 35 2016-04-21T02:42:24  *** cryptocoder has quit IRC
 36 2016-04-21T02:51:12  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 37 2016-04-21T02:52:43  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2016-04-21T03:04:30  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 39 2016-04-21T03:17:52  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 40 2016-04-21T03:22:06  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2016-04-21T03:31:40  *** Thireus has quit IRC
 42 2016-04-21T03:32:38  *** TomMc has quit IRC
 43 2016-04-21T03:35:39  <GitHub112> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #7920: Do not merge yet: Switch Travis to Trusty (master...travis-trusty) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7920
 44 2016-04-21T03:46:15  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
 45 2016-04-21T03:48:20  *** justanotheruser is now known as justanot1eruser
 46 2016-04-21T03:48:52  *** justanot1eruser is now known as justanotheruser
 47 2016-04-21T03:52:44  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2016-04-21T03:55:00  *** Thireus has quit IRC
 49 2016-04-21T03:58:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 50 2016-04-21T04:01:36  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2016-04-21T04:04:48  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 52 2016-04-21T04:09:04  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 53 2016-04-21T04:11:17  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2016-04-21T04:21:17  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
 55 2016-04-21T04:32:20  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
 56 2016-04-21T04:32:46  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 57 2016-04-21T04:34:36  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
 58 2016-04-21T04:51:07  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 59 2016-04-21T04:54:16  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2016-04-21T05:03:24  *** cryptocoder has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2016-04-21T05:12:00  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
 62 2016-04-21T05:14:54  *** cjcj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2016-04-21T05:17:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 64 2016-04-21T05:18:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 65 2016-04-21T05:33:22  *** ebfull has quit IRC
 66 2016-04-21T05:34:32  *** ebfull has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 67 2016-04-21T05:35:53  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 68 2016-04-21T05:37:17  *** ebfull has quit IRC
 69 2016-04-21T05:56:26  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2016-04-21T05:58:25  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
 71 2016-04-21T06:13:40  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2016-04-21T06:19:20  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 73 2016-04-21T06:21:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 74 2016-04-21T06:22:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2016-04-21T06:42:33  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, is it going to cause problems for afl if a bunch of things to fuzz are all in the same binary with a giant switch() ?
 76 2016-04-21T06:44:46  <gmaxwell> No.
 77 2016-04-21T06:45:13  <gmaxwell> though it might be better to make the switch triggered with a commandline flag, and run afl seperately for each thing. or maybe not.
 78 2016-04-21T06:45:48  <gmaxwell> AFL has a hash table and branches are just randomly mapped into it, so combining things in one binary won't hurt.
 79 2016-04-21T06:46:07  <gmaxwell> you might not get even coverage of the different functions if which function is being used is read from the input though.
 80 2016-04-21T06:51:18  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 81 2016-04-21T06:51:42  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, trying to figure out how to easily fuzz loooots of things
 82 2016-04-21T06:52:05  <gmaxwell> then perhaps one binary and input from AFL is the right thing to do.
 83 2016-04-21T07:44:07  *** Cory has quit IRC
 84 2016-04-21T07:46:54  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 85 2016-04-21T07:48:40  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2016-04-21T07:49:02  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2016-04-21T08:14:51  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2016-04-21T09:40:02  *** KHCkjhv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2016-04-21T09:49:18  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 90 2016-04-21T09:59:21  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 91 2016-04-21T09:59:29  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
 92 2016-04-21T10:13:11  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
 93 2016-04-21T10:22:42  *** fengling has quit IRC
 94 2016-04-21T10:23:13  <nickler> phantomcircuit: what do you plan to fuzz?
 95 2016-04-21T10:27:55  <wumpus> all the things!!?!?!
 96 2016-04-21T10:28:25  <wumpus> I have a fuzzing branch for univalue if you want to fuzz that
 97 2016-04-21T10:28:49  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, i cant figure out a sane way to get the build system to work
 98 2016-04-21T10:30:07  <wumpus> I'll see if I can find my notes
 99 2016-04-21T10:34:56  <wumpus> phantomcircuit: first you need this branch: https://github.com/laanwj/univalue/tree/2015_11_unifuzz   (helpfully rebased on top of my UTF-8 branch)  ... secondly use this to build: https://gist.github.com/laanwj/68551528b7ae641ccaeb519566ca67c7
100 2016-04-21T10:35:14  <wumpus> then you can use afl with the executable 'unifuzz'
101 2016-04-21T10:37:44  *** davec has quit IRC
102 2016-04-21T10:44:33  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2016-04-21T10:58:51  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, hmm so you have the fuzzing thing as a test binary
104 2016-04-21T10:59:03  <phantomcircuit> i guess that makes more sense than adding a new directory
105 2016-04-21T11:01:23  *** afk11 has quit IRC
106 2016-04-21T11:02:22  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2016-04-21T11:04:19  *** Pasha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2016-04-21T11:06:12  <wumpus> yes you need to recompile using the fuzzing gcc/g++ for instrumentation, and you need an executable that takes input on stdin and returns an exit status based on the input (or crashes, if it's found a bug)
109 2016-04-21T11:06:33  <wumpus> also you need input samples that are ok and that fail, univalue has a few of those int the test directory
110 2016-04-21T11:06:48  <wumpus> afl-fuzz generates further samples based on those
111 2016-04-21T11:08:01  *** Cory has quit IRC
112 2016-04-21T11:08:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
113 2016-04-21T11:08:07  *** Alopex1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2016-04-21T11:11:12  *** Pasha is now known as Cory
115 2016-04-21T11:12:43  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, yeah i have a special vm where i have CC=afl-gcc and CXX=afl-g++ for the entire system
116 2016-04-21T11:12:50  <phantomcircuit> so all libraries are instrumented
117 2016-04-21T11:13:02  <phantomcircuit> (also i have some glibc debugging stuff enabled system wide)
118 2016-04-21T11:13:05  <wumpus> that's not usually neede though
119 2016-04-21T11:13:27  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, i know, it basically means im also fuzzing the library
120 2016-04-21T11:13:55  * sipa likes seeing this discussion
121 2016-04-21T11:13:57  *** toker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2016-04-21T11:14:11  <wumpus> which is the same thing you do if you build univalue with the switches I gave. Sure, that won't fuzz libc and such, but for me at least that's out of scope.
123 2016-04-21T11:14:45  <phantomcircuit> i like that it's fuzzing libc also, in case there's some weird interaction that is non-obvious
124 2016-04-21T11:14:58  <phantomcircuit> i've not caught anything yet because of that of course
125 2016-04-21T11:15:18  <wumpus> (and it may work the wrong way around, for example slow down runtime of functions you're not interested in in the first place)
126 2016-04-21T11:18:41  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, oh it's definitely slower
127 2016-04-21T11:19:19  <phantomcircuit> not generally much slower though unless the codes making heavy use of stuff which would otherwise be un-instrumented.... but that's exactly where im kind of interested in instrumenting it
128 2016-04-21T11:19:26  <phantomcircuit> also i have cpu cycles to spare...
129 2016-04-21T11:19:44  *** cryptapus__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2016-04-21T11:20:16  <phantomcircuit> oops it's 4:30am
131 2016-04-21T11:20:19  * phantomcircuit sleeps
132 2016-04-21T11:20:47  <wumpus> yes well happy fuzzing then
133 2016-04-21T11:21:31  <wumpus> :)
134 2016-04-21T11:22:33  *** cryptapus__ is now known as cryptapus_
135 2016-04-21T11:35:02  *** KHCkjhv has quit IRC
136 2016-04-21T11:37:41  *** KHCkjhv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2016-04-21T11:42:40  *** KHCkjhv has quit IRC
138 2016-04-21T11:43:40  *** KHCkjhv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
139 2016-04-21T11:47:36  *** dermoth__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2016-04-21T11:48:49  <GitHub144> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/04a29373571d...7daa3adb242d
141 2016-04-21T11:48:50  <GitHub144> bitcoin/master e9fc71e Cory Fields: net: require lookup functions to specify all arguments...
142 2016-04-21T11:48:50  <GitHub144> bitcoin/master a98cd1f Cory Fields: net: manually resolve dns seed sources...
143 2016-04-21T11:48:51  <GitHub144> bitcoin/master 3675699 Cory Fields: net: resolve outside of storage structures...
144 2016-04-21T11:48:54  <GitHub128> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #7868: net: Split DNS resolving functionality out of net structures (master...net-cleanup-resolve) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7868
145 2016-04-21T11:51:51  *** dermoth_ has quit IRC
146 2016-04-21T11:53:36  *** KHCkjhv has quit IRC
147 2016-04-21T11:57:26  <GitHub164> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7daa3adb242d...bafd075c5e6a
148 2016-04-21T11:57:27  <GitHub164> bitcoin/master 220f950 Yuri Zhykin: Fix for incorrect locking in GetPubKey() (keystore.cpp)
149 2016-04-21T11:57:27  <GitHub164> bitcoin/master bafd075 Pieter Wuille: Merge #7913: Fix for incorrect locking in GetPubKey() (keystore.cpp)...
150 2016-04-21T11:57:37  <GitHub5> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #7913: Fix for incorrect locking in GetPubKey() (keystore.cpp) (master...getpubkey-locking-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7913
151 2016-04-21T11:57:38  *** toker has quit IRC
152 2016-04-21T12:11:03  *** KHCkjhv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2016-04-21T12:15:58  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
154 2016-04-21T12:18:49  *** gevs has quit IRC
155 2016-04-21T12:19:39  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2016-04-21T12:23:50  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
157 2016-04-21T12:23:50  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2016-04-21T12:25:41  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2016-04-21T12:26:15  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
160 2016-04-21T12:31:37  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2016-04-21T12:40:48  *** gevs has quit IRC
162 2016-04-21T12:41:33  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2016-04-21T12:50:10  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
164 2016-04-21T12:54:59  <GitHub119> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bafd075c5e6a...3689ac463439
165 2016-04-21T12:55:01  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master 764d237 Jorge Timón: Globals: Explicitly pass const CChainParams& to UpdateTip()
166 2016-04-21T12:55:01  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master d0a6353 face: Pass CChainParams to DisconnectTip()
167 2016-04-21T12:55:01  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master 176869f face: Explicitly pass CChainParams to ConnectBlock
168 2016-04-21T12:55:13  <GitHub1> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7916: Explicitly pass CChainParams& to DisconnectTip() (master...global-params-cleanup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7916
169 2016-04-21T13:07:38  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: I've just enabled commit access to bitcoin/bitcoin for you - to get you started, can you try to merge #7912 using the github-merge.py script? If you need any help setting it up let me know
170 2016-04-21T13:08:50  <jonasschnelli> \o/
171 2016-04-21T13:09:36  <MarcoFalke> whoohoo
172 2016-04-21T13:09:45  <sipa> MarcoFalke: :)
173 2016-04-21T13:09:46  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
174 2016-04-21T13:09:52  <MarcoFalke> I should edit verify-commits first?
175 2016-04-21T13:10:29  <jonasschnelli> Hmm... maybe you should add you key here first: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/verify-commits/trusted-keys
176 2016-04-21T13:11:06  * jonasschnelli can hear TheBlueMatt murmur in the background
177 2016-04-21T13:11:26  <jonasschnelli> Otherwise verify-commits will fail.
178 2016-04-21T13:11:51  <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: and make sure your sign the merge commits
179 2016-04-21T13:13:35  <sipa> github-merge does that automatically
180 2016-04-21T13:14:10  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
181 2016-04-21T13:17:24  *** face has quit IRC
182 2016-04-21T13:18:08  <jonasschnelli> sipa: okay. But I guess at least you need to specify/gen a key if you haven't done that before. Not sure about MarcoFalke setup.
183 2016-04-21T13:18:14  <sipa> right
184 2016-04-21T13:18:18  <jonasschnelli> His last commits where not listed as "verified" by github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7918/commits
185 2016-04-21T13:18:26  <jonasschnelli> Could be a missing pubkey upload
186 2016-04-21T13:18:50  <wumpus> yes, you need to add the key that you use to sign commits to the verify-commits script, good point
187 2016-04-21T13:18:54  <sipa> ok, so MarcoFalke: can you 1) create a PR to add your key to trusted-keys 2) import your gpg key into github
188 2016-04-21T13:19:04  <MarcoFalke> I am not signing "usual" commits
189 2016-04-21T13:19:09  <wumpus> you don't need to
190 2016-04-21T13:19:11  <MarcoFalke> gpg key is already in github
191 2016-04-21T13:19:19  <MarcoFalke> only merge commits
192 2016-04-21T13:19:21  <sipa> ah, i see
193 2016-04-21T13:19:29  <wumpus> merge commits need to be signed, which is what the script does (as well as other things)
194 2016-04-21T13:19:32  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
195 2016-04-21T13:19:56  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
196 2016-04-21T13:20:01  <MarcoFalke> Also cherry pick commits need to be signed but I am not doing backports anyway
197 2016-04-21T13:20:15  <wumpus> right, as they are effectively merges
198 2016-04-21T13:20:24  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2016-04-21T13:20:37  <sipa> are cherry-picked turned into merges?
200 2016-04-21T13:20:52  <MarcoFalke> no, it is how verify-commit works
201 2016-04-21T13:21:16  <sipa> verify-commits verifies all commits recursively along the leftmost child, i think
202 2016-04-21T13:21:20  <sipa> whether they're merges or not
203 2016-04-21T13:21:43  <MarcoFalke> I think it checks both right and left
204 2016-04-21T13:22:02  <MarcoFalke> (for cherry-pick there is only left ofc)
205 2016-04-21T13:23:00  <sipa> MarcoFalke: where are you based, btw?
206 2016-04-21T13:23:07  <wumpus> the idea is that everything top-level has to be signed by a trusted key
207 2016-04-21T13:23:21  <morcos>  sipa: whats the plan for handling rebases and addressing comments on 7910  (i was optimistically hoping for more of a code freeze while we review it)
208 2016-04-21T13:23:31  <MarcoFalke> süddeutschland :)
209 2016-04-21T13:24:09  * MarcoFalke wonders if sipa is fluent in swabian yet
210 2016-04-21T13:24:22  * sipa is not
211 2016-04-21T13:24:53  <sipa> morcos: i plan to add "fixup" commits to address the nits
212 2016-04-21T13:25:19  <sipa> unless there is something significant
213 2016-04-21T13:27:55  *** zooko has quit IRC
214 2016-04-21T13:27:58  <MarcoFalke> Basically https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7918 would conflict with segwit (on purpose) to get rid of the wildcard import and other cleanup. Should I submit this to the segwit branch instead?
215 2016-04-21T13:28:05  <morcos> ok good and avoid rebasing for merge conflicts until the end i guess?
216 2016-04-21T13:29:17  <sipa> MarcoFalke, morcos: your two above messages are a problem together :)
217 2016-04-21T13:29:40  <sipa> MarcoFalke: it's probably better to do in the segwit branch (which would only modify its final commit)
218 2016-04-21T13:31:01  *** jtimon has quit IRC
219 2016-04-21T13:31:44  <MarcoFalke> Ok, will add this to https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/pull/79
220 2016-04-21T13:31:56  <morcos> sipa: i perhaps started being a bit too thorough in my review (hence getting lost in the weeds of addrman) and i just got worried that its going to be hard to keep up if everythign is changing from underneath me.  but i'm glad to see a bunch of people seem to be reviewing right away, and fixup commits make a lot of sense to me.
221 2016-04-21T13:32:51  <sipa> morcos: yeah, it would have been easier to ask for public review on the 0.12 version, i guess, but they have diverged already a bit
222 2016-04-21T13:35:27  <GitHub84> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7921: [contrib] verify-commits: Add MarcoFalke fingerprint (master...Mf1604-contribMFfingerp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7921
223 2016-04-21T13:37:39  *** BashCo has quit IRC
224 2016-04-21T13:38:39  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
225 2016-04-21T13:41:23  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2016-04-21T13:43:38  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
227 2016-04-21T13:58:24  *** shesek has quit IRC
228 2016-04-21T14:00:41  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
229 2016-04-21T14:00:42  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
230 2016-04-21T14:11:52  *** fanquake has quit IRC
231 2016-04-21T14:14:01  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232 2016-04-21T14:14:40  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2016-04-21T14:18:42  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2016-04-21T14:21:12  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
235 2016-04-21T14:23:17  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
236 2016-04-21T14:24:45  *** earlest has quit IRC
237 2016-04-21T14:32:44  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2016-04-21T14:32:58  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2016-04-21T14:34:40  <GitHub77> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3689ac463439...78d61aab233f
240 2016-04-21T14:34:40  <GitHub77> bitcoin/master fa24329 MarcoFalke: [contrib] verify-commits: Add MarcoFalke fingerprint
241 2016-04-21T14:34:41  <GitHub77> bitcoin/master 78d61aa Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7921: [contrib] verify-commits: Add MarcoFalke fingerprint...
242 2016-04-21T14:34:55  <GitHub188> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7921: [contrib] verify-commits: Add MarcoFalke fingerprint (master...Mf1604-contribMFfingerp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7921
243 2016-04-21T14:35:04  *** BashCo has quit IRC
244 2016-04-21T14:49:56  *** Thireus has quit IRC
245 2016-04-21T14:50:33  <Chris_Stewart_5> How is the sigop limit reached on this test case inside of script_invalid.json?
246 2016-04-21T14:50:54  <Chris_Stewart_5> ["",
247 2016-04-21T14:50:54  <Chris_Stewart_5> "NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j'
248 2016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i'
249 2016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG",
250 2016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> "P2SH,STRICTENC",
251 2016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> "Fails due to 201 sig op limit"]
252 2016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> There are (by my count) 9 OP_CHECKMULTISIG ops with 20 keys a piece
253 2016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> which is 180 sigops
254 2016-04-21T14:51:55  <Chris_Stewart_5> counting sigops by this function https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/script.cpp#L156-L178
255 2016-04-21T14:56:38  *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
256 2016-04-21T14:56:45  *** KHCkjhv has quit IRC
257 2016-04-21T15:00:13  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: please don't paste quotes longer than 3-5 lines
258 2016-04-21T15:04:30  <Chris_Stewart_5> Sorry, copy and pasted it from the file.
259 2016-04-21T15:04:53  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
260 2016-04-21T15:05:06  <sipa> use a pastebin site, please
261 2016-04-21T15:06:51  <Chris_Stewart_5> I'll make sure to do that in the future, here is the pastebin http://pastebin.com/vcEELjwF
262 2016-04-21T15:09:25  *** wasi has quit IRC
263 2016-04-21T15:14:04  *** gevs has quit IRC
264 2016-04-21T15:17:58  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2016-04-21T15:21:38  *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
266 2016-04-21T15:22:00  *** bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
267 2016-04-21T15:23:51  <GitHub39> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/78d61aab233f...59ad56851a34
268 2016-04-21T15:23:51  <GitHub39> bitcoin/master 807fa47 Suhas Daftuar: Tests: Fix deserialization of reject messages...
269 2016-04-21T15:23:52  <GitHub39> bitcoin/master 59ad568 MarcoFalke: Merge #7912: Tests: Fix deserialization of reject messages...
270 2016-04-21T15:24:01  <GitHub137> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #7912: Tests: Fix deserialization of reject messages (master...fix-mininode-reject) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7912
271 2016-04-21T15:27:11  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272 2016-04-21T15:27:31  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
273 2016-04-21T15:27:31  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
274 2016-04-21T15:38:07  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
275 2016-04-21T15:38:45  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
276 2016-04-21T15:42:46  <sipa> MarcoFalke: congrats :)
277 2016-04-21T15:43:17  <btcdrak> first merge :)
278 2016-04-21T15:48:31  <jl2012> Chris_Stewart_5: the comment is misleading
279 2016-04-21T15:48:42  <jl2012> and I think it's actually a bug
280 2016-04-21T15:48:45  <jl2012> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L905
281 2016-04-21T15:49:08  <jl2012> the 201 is the op code limit. Not sigop limit
282 2016-04-21T15:49:45  <jl2012> and CHECKMULTISIG is counted as (number of keys +1) op codes
283 2016-04-21T15:50:00  <jl2012> so 21*9 + 13 (NOP) = 202
284 2016-04-21T15:52:33  *** cryptocoder has quit IRC
285 2016-04-21T15:54:05  * MarcoFalke is waiting for per-repo   .js-merge-branch-action {display: none;}
286 2016-04-21T15:58:00  <Chris_Stewart_5> jl2012: I understand how the comment can be misleading, but how is this a bug? Seems like just a typo in the comment?
287 2016-04-21T15:58:41  <jl2012> CHECKMULTISIG is over counted
288 2016-04-21T16:00:29  <Chris_Stewart_5> jl2012: is +1 for the null dummy?
289 2016-04-21T16:00:42  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
290 2016-04-21T16:00:50  <jl2012> data push should not be counted
291 2016-04-21T16:00:57  <jl2012> and thanks for pointing out. I don't know this "hidden rule"
292 2016-04-21T16:03:31  <Chris_Stewart_5> jl2012: Looks like you right, in sipa's pull request refactoring test cases he expects an OP_COUNT error https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/blob/refactorscriptests_12/src/test/data/script_tests.json#L1097-L1101
293 2016-04-21T16:04:01  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
294 2016-04-21T16:07:13  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
295 2016-04-21T16:14:24  *** d_t has quit IRC
296 2016-04-21T16:20:37  *** zooko has quit IRC
297 2016-04-21T16:23:33  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
298 2016-04-21T16:34:04  *** cryptocoder has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
299 2016-04-21T16:37:14  *** zooko has quit IRC
300 2016-04-21T16:49:20  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2016-04-21T17:01:16  *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302 2016-04-21T17:01:55  *** moli has quit IRC
303 2016-04-21T17:01:55  *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
304 2016-04-21T17:01:55  *** BlueMatt has quit IRC
305 2016-04-21T17:02:31  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
306 2016-04-21T17:02:37  *** Madars_ has quit IRC
307 2016-04-21T17:03:05  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
308 2016-04-21T17:03:11  *** kanzure has quit IRC
309 2016-04-21T17:03:45  *** arowser has quit IRC
310 2016-04-21T17:04:11  *** BlueMatt_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
311 2016-04-21T17:04:11  *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312 2016-04-21T17:04:12  *** murch has quit IRC
313 2016-04-21T17:04:12  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
314 2016-04-21T17:04:12  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
315 2016-04-21T17:04:13  *** Madars_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
316 2016-04-21T17:07:06  *** kangx has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
317 2016-04-21T17:07:49  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
318 2016-04-21T17:08:39  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
319 2016-04-21T17:09:19  *** pedrobra_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
320 2016-04-21T17:10:20  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
321 2016-04-21T17:10:44  *** kanzure_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322 2016-04-21T17:11:00  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
323 2016-04-21T17:11:35  *** kanzure_ has quit IRC
324 2016-04-21T17:12:26  *** kanzure has quit IRC
325 2016-04-21T17:12:26  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
326 2016-04-21T17:15:50  *** trippysa1mon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
327 2016-04-21T17:17:39  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
328 2016-04-21T17:17:56  *** JackH_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
329 2016-04-21T17:18:05  *** dermoth_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
330 2016-04-21T17:19:13  *** Thireus has quit IRC
331 2016-04-21T17:19:13  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
332 2016-04-21T17:19:14  *** dermoth__ has quit IRC
333 2016-04-21T17:19:14  *** JackH has quit IRC
334 2016-04-21T17:19:14  *** adam3us has quit IRC
335 2016-04-21T17:19:14  *** trippysalmon has quit IRC
336 2016-04-21T17:19:15  *** nanotube has quit IRC
337 2016-04-21T17:20:55  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
338 2016-04-21T17:26:58  *** nanotube has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
339 2016-04-21T17:27:24  *** arowser_ has quit IRC
340 2016-04-21T17:27:39  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
341 2016-04-21T17:33:01  <cfields> phantomcircuit: sorry i missed your ping yesterday. A fuzzer sounds like a great idea
342 2016-04-21T17:33:10  <cfields> phantomcircuit: what's the problem you're having?
343 2016-04-21T17:56:49  *** bysherper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
344 2016-04-21T17:59:53  *** earlest has quit IRC
345 2016-04-21T18:01:00  <gmaxwell> jtimon: meeting in one hour.
346 2016-04-21T18:02:43  <jtimon> is not now?
347 2016-04-21T18:04:13  <gmaxwell> jtimon: no it's in one hour.
348 2016-04-21T18:04:51  <gmaxwell> The time of the meeting is 1900 UTC.
349 2016-04-21T18:05:25  <jtimon> yeah, sorry, thanks
350 2016-04-21T18:07:00  <wumpus> lol, enter it into google schedule already
351 2016-04-21T18:08:04  <wumpus> every week you're either a week early or late :)
352 2016-04-21T18:08:10  <wumpus> hour*
353 2016-04-21T18:08:32  *** pedrobra_ has quit IRC
354 2016-04-21T18:09:47  <jtimon> last week one hour later, this one hour early, next week...
355 2016-04-21T18:14:17  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
356 2016-04-21T18:15:47  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
357 2016-04-21T18:16:29  *** molz has quit IRC
358 2016-04-21T18:24:01  *** telelvis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
359 2016-04-21T18:38:38  <btcdrak> next week jtimon will perfect the quantum state of being both early and late for the meeting, but not on time.
360 2016-04-21T18:39:53  <jtimon> no, next week I will be half an hour late, then half an hour early, then 15 min late...
361 2016-04-21T18:41:17  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362 2016-04-21T18:45:01  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
363 2016-04-21T18:45:14  *** bysherper has quit IRC
364 2016-04-21T18:47:50  *** earlest has quit IRC
365 2016-04-21T18:52:18  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
366 2016-04-21T18:56:37  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
367 2016-04-21T18:58:42  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
368 2016-04-21T19:00:27  <wumpus> meeting time
369 2016-04-21T19:00:28  <jonasschnelli> ding-dong
370 2016-04-21T19:00:34  <wumpus> #startmeeting
371 2016-04-21T19:00:34  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Apr 21 19:00:34 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
372 2016-04-21T19:00:34  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
373 2016-04-21T19:00:46  <gmaxwell> jtimon: now.
374 2016-04-21T19:01:19  <wumpus> topic ideas?
375 2016-04-21T19:01:28  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
376 2016-04-21T19:01:35  <kanzure> segwit review
377 2016-04-21T19:01:43  <gmaxwell> cfields: morcos: sdaftuar: sipa: petertod1: jonasschnelli: MarcoFalke: phantomcircuit: BlueMatt_:
378 2016-04-21T19:01:58  * sipa not very present
379 2016-04-21T19:02:04  <cfields> gmaxwell: here, thanks :)
380 2016-04-21T19:02:14  <sdaftuar> here
381 2016-04-21T19:02:17  <kanzure> there were some ideas submitted to split the segwit pull request for some not-quite-segwit but still good contributions into separate pull requests, i think it was phantomcircuit who said these things
382 2016-04-21T19:02:20  <wumpus> only one action item from last week, move the 0.13 release schedule a month forward, that has been done
383 2016-04-21T19:02:34  <sipa> kanzure: they already are
384 2016-04-21T19:02:46  <sipa> kanzure: it's a single PR, enforcing service bits
385 2016-04-21T19:02:58  <wumpus> #topic segwit review
386 2016-04-21T19:02:58  <kanzure> alright
387 2016-04-21T19:03:15  <gmaxwell> There has been a lot of input, which is good.
388 2016-04-21T19:03:20  <morcos> i'm here temporarily
389 2016-04-21T19:03:27  <cfields> sipa: i suppose you'd prefer to review and merge that first and rebase on top?
390 2016-04-21T19:03:33  <sipa> my suggestion is to not rebase on master, and only add fixes as new commits
391 2016-04-21T19:04:11  <kanzure> i have finished a read-through of the pull request although i might ask for assistance with someone to eliminate chunks of my notes (e.g. stuff it wouldn't be helpful for me to double check)...
392 2016-04-21T19:04:23  <kanzure> (actually, i have read only the source code but not per commit, so commit ACKs will be incoming later)
393 2016-04-21T19:04:30  <morcos> i think we should all make an effort to review as much segwit and do as little other merging as we can until we are ready to merge it.
394 2016-04-21T19:05:01  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
395 2016-04-21T19:05:22  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
396 2016-04-21T19:05:32  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
397 2016-04-21T19:05:43  <sdaftuar> +1
398 2016-04-21T19:05:53  <sdaftuar> i think it'd be helpful to focus review effort now
399 2016-04-21T19:06:02  <cfields> morcos: ok by me. I'd like to ask for an exception for the Travis migration stuff though, since I've got them actively engaged
400 2016-04-21T19:06:06  <gmaxwell> That is going to create artifical merge pressure to avoid stalling everything else.
401 2016-04-21T19:06:09  <cfields> (that shouldn't affect segwit at all)
402 2016-04-21T19:06:13  <wumpus> I don't think we can stop the world until segwit gets in
403 2016-04-21T19:06:18  <morcos> s/artificial//
404 2016-04-21T19:06:23  <wumpus> there are *lots* of things going on right now
405 2016-04-21T19:06:34  <wumpus> I do agree we should delay things that potentially conflict with segwit
406 2016-04-21T19:06:46  <wumpus> to save sipa on rebasing work
407 2016-04-21T19:07:13  <sdaftuar> save sipa and also help reviewers
408 2016-04-21T19:07:20  <kanzure> pull request 7910 says "But a lot of testing (unit tests, rpc tests, p2p tests, and tests by external software projects) are being done already, so it is probably time to make it visible as a PR for general review."
409 2016-04-21T19:07:21  <morcos> mostly i'm talking about order of operations here.  if there are people who aren't going to review segwit, sure, keep on doing what you're doing.  but whoever is going to review segwit.  why not do that first.
410 2016-04-21T19:07:29  <kanzure> but perhaps a more elaborate test status update could be given by sipa either today or eventually?
411 2016-04-21T19:07:36  <jtimon> I'm fine with delaying after segwit as well, at least for things that are clearly going to conflict
412 2016-04-21T19:08:56  <morcos> if it was up to me, i would say we should stop the world until it gets in.  i'm of course aware that it is not up to me and can live with other approaches, but just trying to push us as much that direction as possible
413 2016-04-21T19:09:19  <wumpus> also mind that lots of pulls are being submitted, multiple every day, there's only a few days that we really can hold up merging until the load becomes unbearable
414 2016-04-21T19:09:47  <wumpus> what areas should we avoid changes to make it easier for segwit?
415 2016-04-21T19:10:39  <kanzure> would we want to do backport implementation and testing and review before merging something like 7910?
416 2016-04-21T19:11:06  <cfields> wumpus: there's also the option of a rebase exemption for segwit, allowing a traditional merge for the sake of not invalidating reviews
417 2016-04-21T19:11:30  <wumpus> cfields: but that doesn't help the underlying issue, it just moves the work to the merge
418 2016-04-21T19:11:33  <morcos> btw, to clarify my earlier comment, this isn't about getting segwit in as quickly as possible according to the calendar.  this is about being as efficient workers as possible.
419 2016-04-21T19:11:54  <wumpus> morcos: an efficient project has multiple people working in parallel on multiple things
420 2016-04-21T19:12:07  <wumpus> especially if these things are orthogonal, e.g. RPC or P2P work
421 2016-04-21T19:12:15  <gmaxwell> I don't think right now we're at a point where if there was nothing in flight that we'd merge today. If we were, then I'd agree that we should stop the world.
422 2016-04-21T19:12:42  <jtimon> maybe it make sense to merge and backport the first "preparations" section of the PR separately (that should be fast)?
423 2016-04-21T19:12:55  <morcos> i guess maybe we're talking at cross purposes.  i just don't understand why people are working on other things instead of reviewing segwit so we are at a point where it can be merged
424 2016-04-21T19:12:58  <kanzure> #action more code review of segwit
425 2016-04-21T19:13:01  <morcos> it needs review, and its a priority for the project
426 2016-04-21T19:13:01  <wumpus> cfields: and if you move the work to the merge then the review is pretty much invalidated too, because the code after the merge looks much different from taht before
427 2016-04-21T19:13:22  <gmaxwell> I think there are probably a couple rebases worth of general hammering on segwit before we'd do that. There are also 'preparations' PRs that are seperate which can go in now. So perhaps those should also be a priority.
428 2016-04-21T19:13:34  <sipa> wumpus: rebasing from 0.12 to master took me 2 hours or so; i think we shouldn't overeagerly rebase, but it's not impossible
429 2016-04-21T19:14:12  <kanzure> that gives us only 360 rebases per month not counting sleep
430 2016-04-21T19:14:27  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
431 2016-04-21T19:14:32  <jtimon> the sooner we merge these safe preparations, the sooner can stop worrying about other things conflicting with them
432 2016-04-21T19:14:33  <cfields> wumpus: fair enough
433 2016-04-21T19:14:42  <wumpus> so again:
434 2016-04-21T19:14:53  <wumpus> changes to what areas should be avoided to make it easier for segwit?
435 2016-04-21T19:15:16  <wumpus> what are the most annoying things to rebase sipa?
436 2016-04-21T19:15:24  <wumpus> or at least, risky
437 2016-04-21T19:15:33  <jtimon> I would assume consensus and relay policy refactors not directly contributing as preparations to segwit should wait
438 2016-04-21T19:15:48  <wumpus> makes sense
439 2016-04-21T19:15:52  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
440 2016-04-21T19:16:02  <gmaxwell> do we have coverage analysis for the current tests? relative to segwit?
441 2016-04-21T19:16:03  <jtimon> not sure about other areas
442 2016-04-21T19:17:03  <wumpus> and yes if things can be merged already to pave the way for segwit, all the better
443 2016-04-21T19:17:37  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: LCOV was included recently. I think there is a make target for the tests that produce coverage files
444 2016-04-21T19:17:39  <cfields> gmaxwell: i can whip up a simple before/after. That's a good incentive to see if the dusty coverage stuff comes anywhere close to working.
445 2016-04-21T19:17:47  <jtimon> I think that will also simplify review, by allowing one to make it in "phases"
446 2016-04-21T19:18:03  <sipa> i'm not very worried about anything in-progres changes now
447 2016-04-21T19:18:04  <gmaxwell> cfields: it might be useful in order to focus some attention on areas where people could contribute tests.
448 2016-04-21T19:18:33  <wumpus> ok, in that case I'm not worried either, just trying to help
449 2016-04-21T19:19:04  <cfields> yep, agreed. it'd be helpful to find what paths aren't covered for serialization too, since those changes are hard to review.
450 2016-04-21T19:19:11  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
451 2016-04-21T19:19:14  <cfields> (hard for me, anyway)
452 2016-04-21T19:19:31  <kanzure> #action look at test coverage output
453 2016-04-21T19:19:32  <morcos> sipa: so i'm not sure i understand.  are you only going to rebase rarely and announce in advance?  and how does one review the rebase other than trying to recreate it?
454 2016-04-21T19:19:34  <gmaxwell> can we agree on a subset of the segwit commits as being most in need of review right now, to focus on those?
455 2016-04-21T19:20:28  <gmaxwell> one thing we need to be warry of is loss of synchronization between 0.12 and 0.13, if the patches are not updated primarily by updating 0.12 and then carrying the updates in a rebase.
456 2016-04-21T19:21:01  <jtimon> that's why I suggested merging and backporting the preparations first
457 2016-04-21T19:21:06  <sipa> morcos: i'm not sure, i can not rebase at all
458 2016-04-21T19:21:38  <sipa> gmaxwell: i think we'll end uo backporting the master patchset back to 0.12
459 2016-04-21T19:22:15  <luke-jr> personally, I think it would be cleaner and perhaps easier to review a merge rather than a rebase. but I suspect others here disagree.
460 2016-04-21T19:22:32  <jtimon> oh, #7910 needs rebase...
461 2016-04-21T19:22:53  <sipa> luke-jr: you can always recreate the merge, and then diff against the result.of the rebase
462 2016-04-21T19:23:16  <kanzure> er, i think that requires the original commits- which you might not have if you didn't fetch in time
463 2016-04-21T19:23:21  <kanzure> *git fetch in time
464 2016-04-21T19:23:42  <luke-jr> kanzure: if you didn't fetch, how did you review the older commits? ;)
465 2016-04-21T19:23:44  <jtimon> well, mergers can test locally whether a given PR is going to create conflicts to segwit or leave the hypotethical rebase clean before merging (perhaphs that's too much work)
466 2016-04-21T19:23:54  <kanzure> luke-jr: there's an answer but it's not a good answer
467 2016-04-21T19:24:00  <kanzure> luke-jr: (for the record, i definitely fetched.)
468 2016-04-21T19:24:03  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
469 2016-04-21T19:24:52  <morcos> ok. well i have to run.  i hope i'm not being difficult, i just think sometimes we could work together a little better as a team if we're more willing to coordinate/cooperate.
470 2016-04-21T19:24:56  <kanzure> also interested in determining which areas or which segwit commits are most needing of review
471 2016-04-21T19:25:13  <morcos> in that vein if there is something else i could do to help, please let me know, in the meantime i'm going to keep going through segwit commits one by one
472 2016-04-21T19:25:27  <jtimon> morcos: I don't think anybody disagreed on your point about review for segwit being a priority
473 2016-04-21T19:26:08  <morcos> jtimon: i know, i'm just used to people telling other people what to do.  :)
474 2016-04-21T19:26:47  <gmaxwell> I think I will make an effort to encourage people I see working on other things who haven't reviewed segwit to also review segwit.
475 2016-04-21T19:26:50  <wumpus> at least I don't disagree, just that we can't force people to not work on other stuff, and that that wouldn't be constructive either (it'd just result in less work in other things instead of more work on segwit)
476 2016-04-21T19:26:58  <kanzure> getblocktemplate changes probably need a few eyeballs to confirm things..
477 2016-04-21T19:27:24  <luke-jr> yes, I need to update the GBT change PR
478 2016-04-21T19:27:36  <CodeShark> sipa: I've mostly reviewed the older segwit branches - is there anything specific to look for or test in the rebase?
479 2016-04-21T19:27:46  <luke-jr> #action (Luke) update GBT segwit stuff
480 2016-04-21T19:28:16  <sipa> luke-jr: first figure out the bip9 related changes, i guess
481 2016-04-21T19:28:18  <kanzure> luke-jr: should others wait on looking at getblocktemplate things there until you submit your update?
482 2016-04-21T19:28:27  *** airmac has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
483 2016-04-21T19:28:29  *** BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
484 2016-04-21T19:28:29  *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
485 2016-04-21T19:28:30  <sipa> kanzure: it'll just add a few fields
486 2016-04-21T19:28:30  <airmac> anyone intrested in trading bitgold for bitcoin we can use escrow if you like
487 2016-04-21T19:28:31  <airmac> <airmac> you have to have a non us bitgold account to received bitgold
488 2016-04-21T19:28:31  <airmac> <airmac> www.bitgold.com
489 2016-04-21T19:28:37  <jtimon> I have still only reviewed a few commits, and they may have changed
490 2016-04-21T19:28:43  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o sipa
491 2016-04-21T19:28:48  *** sipa sets mode: +b *!*airmac@*.flip.co.nz
492 2016-04-21T19:28:48  *** airmac was kicked by sipa (airmac)
493 2016-04-21T19:28:54  <kanzure> OK new fields sounds trivial-ish, so probably not a review blocker
494 2016-04-21T19:29:20  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
495 2016-04-21T19:29:56  <luke-jr> I don't know what the code state is for that, but the BIP PR needs updating at least
496 2016-04-21T19:29:59  *** JackH_ is now known as JackH
497 2016-04-21T19:30:18  <luke-jr> sipa: any changes needed beyond our last conversation on that?
498 2016-04-21T19:30:26  <gmaxwell> we probably need a deployment related affordance, where one can continue to mine without changes to GBT but not mine any new SW transactions; so that the recourse when there are downstream issues isn't back-out segwit.
499 2016-04-21T19:30:41  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
500 2016-04-21T19:31:00  <jtimon> I think after the next rebase, we should be careful to merge anything that will require another non-trivial rebase
501 2016-04-21T19:31:30  *** zooko has quit IRC
502 2016-04-21T19:31:35  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: before merging segwit, or as a follow-up PR?
503 2016-04-21T19:31:48  <gmaxwell> doesn't have to be before.
504 2016-04-21T19:34:37  <wumpus> ok, next topic? any proposals?
505 2016-04-21T19:34:48  <cfields> topic proposal: travis switchover
506 2016-04-21T19:34:54  <kanzure> if we could get an outline of which areas have been receiving lots of testing, which areas are under-tested, and which areas should be review critical and extra attention, then i think it will help smooth the review process
507 2016-04-21T19:35:04  <wumpus> #topic travis switch to trusty
508 2016-04-21T19:35:24  <wumpus> kanzure: agree that would be useful
509 2016-04-21T19:35:34  <luke-jr> I dislike breaking external repos' ability to use Travis, but… we're already at that point, so meh
510 2016-04-21T19:35:49  <cfields> I tried to summarize in #7920. Basically we need to hit a few buttons that may cause a few hours of instability. I don't think there's really much downside other than that, I just didn't want to pull the trigger without opening it for discussion
511 2016-04-21T19:35:58  <cfields> luke-jr: this doesn't disable their ability
512 2016-04-21T19:36:08  <wumpus> a few hours travis downtime is no problem
513 2016-04-21T19:36:17  <cfields> luke-jr: they just won't get caching until the feature is generally available. They can ask for it as well.
514 2016-04-21T19:36:21  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
515 2016-04-21T19:36:25  <wumpus> luke-jr: how would this change that?
516 2016-04-21T19:36:31  <luke-jr> cfields: well, right now Travis is unwilling to enable it for other repos without a contractual agreement
517 2016-04-21T19:36:37  <wumpus> we already have special support for caching
518 2016-04-21T19:36:37  <luke-jr> wumpus: it wouldn't, hence meh
519 2016-04-21T19:36:38  <jtimon> cfields: hours of isntability? meh, people can just change the commit id without changes and force push
520 2016-04-21T19:36:45  <wumpus> right.
521 2016-04-21T19:36:46  <cfields> luke-jr: eh? It's an email asking for a flag :)
522 2016-04-21T19:36:49  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: right now we have some special settings that are us only. This moves us closer to a standard configuration.
523 2016-04-21T19:36:49  <kanzure> is the concern that build caching is too much load on travis?
524 2016-04-21T19:36:51  <jonasschnelli> cfields: Is there still no way to use the non-sudo travis way?
525 2016-04-21T19:36:52  <kanzure> *their concern
526 2016-04-21T19:36:58  <luke-jr> cfields: and gets denied unless you have an arrangement
527 2016-04-21T19:37:10  <jonasschnelli> cfields: qt has been added to the "allowed packages"
528 2016-04-21T19:37:17  <cfields> luke-jr: huh? This _removes_ our arrangement.
529 2016-04-21T19:37:25  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: cfields: oh, I missed that detail
530 2016-04-21T19:37:42  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: basically this gets rid of the old thing, in favor of a new feature which will be available to everyone.
531 2016-04-21T19:37:50  <btcdrak> luke-jr: travis plan to roll it out for everyone.
532 2016-04-21T19:37:52  <luke-jr> even better
533 2016-04-21T19:38:16  <cfields> jonasschnelli: there are a few annoying things that won't every work without sudo, I'm afraid
534 2016-04-21T19:38:30  <gmaxwell> it isn't _yet_ available to everyone, but the plan is that it will be, and it sounds like they would be much more willing to enable it for others.
535 2016-04-21T19:38:40  <cfields> unless they can be encouraged to come up with some workarounds
536 2016-04-21T19:38:47  * luke-jr looked at removing sudo use a while ago, and thought it just needed whitelisted pkgs
537 2016-04-21T19:38:56  <cfields> right, we're beta testers. Pretty strenuous ones too :)
538 2016-04-21T19:38:56  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
539 2016-04-21T19:38:58  <sipa> i would love to just enable travis on my own bitcoin fork repo
540 2016-04-21T19:39:02  <kanzure> and travis changes are off-limits if they break lots of downstream forked projects?
541 2016-04-21T19:39:04  *** sipa sets mode: -o sipa
542 2016-04-21T19:39:10  <kanzure> what level of commitment are we making there anyway..
543 2016-04-21T19:39:14  <jonasschnelli> sipa: you can?!
544 2016-04-21T19:39:16  <jtimon> sipa + 5
545 2016-04-21T19:39:24  <jtimon> oh, really?
546 2016-04-21T19:39:27  <cfields> sipa: you can already, it just takes ages
547 2016-04-21T19:39:35  <jonasschnelli> unless you pay.
548 2016-04-21T19:39:36  <sipa> cfields: it fails for me
549 2016-04-21T19:39:39  <sdaftuar> takes ages?  i find that about half the time the jobs fail
550 2016-04-21T19:39:41  <jtimon> #action tutorial to enable travis on your own repo
551 2016-04-21T19:39:43  <sipa> jonasschnelli: no, it:s free
552 2016-04-21T19:39:51  <jonasschnelli> sipa: you might need to push a recent master
553 2016-04-21T19:39:55  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: recently?
554 2016-04-21T19:39:59  <cfields> everyone can ask for the flag, we can nag them into pulling it out of beta :p
555 2016-04-21T19:40:00  <sdaftuar> yeah, all the time
556 2016-04-21T19:40:01  <jonasschnelli> sipa: its free but you get more cycles if you pay.
557 2016-04-21T19:40:07  <sipa> of course
558 2016-04-21T19:40:19  <sipa> bit until recently everything jist failed to build
559 2016-04-21T19:40:20  <kanzure> sounds like the failure might be due to lack of flag enablement
560 2016-04-21T19:40:28  <luke-jr> hrm, I fixed some Travis-outside-of-"bitcoin" issues earleir this year
561 2016-04-21T19:40:46  <cfields> i'm working with them on a few other things (their-side) that should speed up builds as well
562 2016-04-21T19:41:01  * gmaxwell looks over at the rack in his office with hundreds of processors that can't be used for this because we're depending on external infrastructure. 
563 2016-04-21T19:41:04  <cfields> so likely in the near future it will be possible for everyone to have their own repos being built
564 2016-04-21T19:41:06  <jonasschnelli> While where at travis: we could also think about adding another github compatible CI to speedup tests (share platforms over two CI systems)?
565 2016-04-21T19:41:10  <wumpus> in any case very good to hear the trusty conversion is very close now, let's set things in motion
566 2016-04-21T19:41:16  <kanzure> perhaps some companies would be willing to sponsor large piles of testing infrastructure :)
567 2016-04-21T19:41:24  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: nah, maintaining one is enough work
568 2016-04-21T19:41:27  <cfields> wumpus: ok, can be done today
569 2016-04-21T19:41:27  <kanzure> lots of testing infrastructure would mean big development cycle speedups, less time waiting scratching heads
570 2016-04-21T19:41:31  <wumpus> cfields: +1
571 2016-04-21T19:41:47  <wumpus> cfields: let me know when I need to merge
572 2016-04-21T19:41:49  <gmaxwell> cfields: in any case, push button; please
573 2016-04-21T19:41:53  <cfields> wumpus: just need someone around to click the merge button on my PR after it goes live
574 2016-04-21T19:42:12  <cfields> roger. Confirming now.
575 2016-04-21T19:42:13  * jtimon remembers asking for a script to run everything travis runs in his own computer, is there such a thing?
576 2016-04-21T19:42:28  <luke-jr> if there was a non-proprietary CI option, we could use gmaxwell's hundreds of processors, and also reproduce issues locally ;)
577 2016-04-21T19:42:37  <cfields> jtimon: sure
578 2016-04-21T19:42:39  <btcdrak> cfields: +1
579 2016-04-21T19:42:42  <luke-jr> there is?
580 2016-04-21T19:42:52  <cfields> luke-jr: travis is completely open, btw
581 2016-04-21T19:43:14  <kanzure> #action (cfields) travis changes requiring some downtime
582 2016-04-21T19:43:22  <wumpus> thanks kanzure
583 2016-04-21T19:43:38  <jtimon> well, I could use a link to a tutorial or something, but I guess we can take that offline (ie after the meeting), thanks cfields
584 2016-04-21T19:43:45  <wumpus> #action merge #7920 when cfields says so
585 2016-04-21T19:43:52  <cfields> jtimon: sure
586 2016-04-21T19:44:01  <jtimon> if I could queue builds that would be even more awesome
587 2016-04-21T19:44:35  <wumpus> ok, any other topics to be discussed?
588 2016-04-21T19:46:16  <wumpus> seems not :)
589 2016-04-21T19:46:27  <btcdrak> the segwit afterparty!
590 2016-04-21T19:46:28  <jtimon> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_QR9QP0Rjsc/maxresdefault.jpg
591 2016-04-21T19:46:41  <wumpus> #endmeeting
592 2016-04-21T19:46:41  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Apr 21 19:46:41 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
593 2016-04-21T19:46:41  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-04-21-19.00.html
594 2016-04-21T19:46:41  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-04-21-19.00.txt
595 2016-04-21T19:46:41  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-04-21-19.00.log.html
596 2016-04-21T19:46:46  <kanzure> i was told there would be a space boat party
597 2016-04-21T19:47:00  <wumpus> haha that party gets grander every time
598 2016-04-21T19:48:08  <jtimon> so, cfields, maybe a mail to the ml with a little introduction to "travis, you didn't know? you can do this at home!" and I can ask questions there (maybe more people are interested)
599 2016-04-21T19:48:44  <kanzure> approximately how much time on average per travis build without caching?
600 2016-04-21T19:48:51  <cfields> jtimon: sure. The foundation of moving to travis was to get everything in-tree so that anyone can run it. Travis just happens to be running it for us automatically
601 2016-04-21T19:49:30  <gmaxwell> kanzure: by space boat party http://www.lorensworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Outer-Space-themed-glowing-bath.jpg
602 2016-04-21T19:49:44  <cfields> kanzure: now that we have docker availability, we can work on stashing depends as a separate step. I know you don't like 'docker build', but it'd be a stepping stone
603 2016-04-21T19:49:55  <jtimon> I thought it was a private cloud service we were paying...
604 2016-04-21T19:49:56  *** bysherper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
605 2016-04-21T19:50:05  *** telelvis has quit IRC
606 2016-04-21T19:50:06  <kanzure> gmaxwell: the real party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field
607 2016-04-21T19:50:40  <kanzure> cfields: thanks for remembering that actually, world would be a much better place if we could all remember everyone else's dispreferences :)
608 2016-04-21T19:50:57  <cfields> jtimon: travis just spawns VM instances and runs your build scripts. We could just as easily have someone else running it
609 2016-04-21T19:51:03  <cfields> heh
610 2016-04-21T19:51:08  <kanzure> cfields: yeah stashing would be helpful i'm sure. but i was asking for time averages because that number is helpful when asking companies for testing resources sponsorship.
611 2016-04-21T19:51:42  <cfields> kanzure: it varies, but we push 50min for the worst case
612 2016-04-21T19:51:49  <cfields> but again, that includes depends
613 2016-04-21T19:51:52  <kanzure> or does travis throw as much computing as we request?
614 2016-04-21T19:52:38  <cfields> kanzure: remember though, we dropped our own hosted bot because it required meddling with things under the hood. The nice thing about travis is that we give it a descriptive recipe, and we know what to expect.
615 2016-04-21T19:52:57  <jtimon> cfields: I guess I should start here https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/getting-started/
616 2016-04-21T19:52:57  <cfields> I'd be pretty adamant about making sure it continues to go that way
617 2016-04-21T19:53:07  <wumpus> yes I prefer travis too to hosting something on our own
618 2016-04-21T19:53:24  <wumpus> pulltester required so much babysitting
619 2016-04-21T19:53:28  <kanzure> i know travis does freebies for open-source project but if we have 80 pull requests opened on the same day, do they go in parallel?
620 2016-04-21T19:53:29  <cfields> jtimon: all you need to do is yank commands out of the .travis.yml and run them locally
621 2016-04-21T19:53:29  *** earlest has quit IRC
622 2016-04-21T19:53:46  <wumpus> kanzure: no, they'll be queued
623 2016-04-21T19:53:50  <jtimon> well, if it's free software there's no problem in it being hosted, we can host it ourselves later if needed
624 2016-04-21T19:53:56  <cfields> kanzure: 4 concurrent builds, iirc
625 2016-04-21T19:53:57  <kanzure> what is the queue width?
626 2016-04-21T19:53:59  <kanzure> eww 4??
627 2016-04-21T19:54:10  <wumpus> hosting it yourself would *also* cost money
628 2016-04-21T19:54:12  <kanzure> yeah okay, so 50 minutes, 4 builds at most
629 2016-04-21T19:54:15  <kanzure> yeah i know
630 2016-04-21T19:54:20  <jtimon> cfields: oh, that easy? thank you, awesome!
631 2016-04-21T19:54:24  <kanzure> anyway this is useful. i will repeat these numbers in public more frequently.
632 2016-04-21T19:54:28  <cfields> kanzure: well on the good case, each build only takes about 5min
633 2016-04-21T19:54:49  <cfields> kanzure: sec, i'll grab a random PR and check
634 2016-04-21T19:54:55  <wumpus> as well as time spent working to administrate servers, which is far from free
635 2016-04-21T19:55:06  <kanzure> yeah i understand. travis makes sense to me. i have no problems with travis at the moment.
636 2016-04-21T19:55:38  <cfields> kanzure: https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/builds/123870873
637 2016-04-21T19:55:42  <kanzure> but.... if ecosystem companies want more development, paying for some more travis concurrency would go a long way.
638 2016-04-21T19:56:01  <jtimon> so...hours of disruption, merging when #7920 when cfields says so...what is the blocker?
639 2016-04-21T19:56:10  <cfields> kanzure: yes, that's very reasonable imo
640 2016-04-21T19:56:10  <kanzure> "Total time 1 hr 2 min 4 sec" yeah this can easily clog 4 workers..
641 2016-04-21T19:56:32  <kanzure> jtimon: he just wanted to inform us about it
642 2016-04-21T19:56:38  <jtimon> the sooner we enjoy those hours of disruption, the better, no?
643 2016-04-21T19:56:39  <kanzure> jtimon: since it would be kinda rude to flip the switch otherwise
644 2016-04-21T19:56:51  <cfields> jtimon: I've already requested it, just waiting on a mail
645 2016-04-21T19:56:52  <jtimon> kanzure: I see, that makes sense
646 2016-04-21T19:57:41  <cfields> btw, there should be no actual disruption. In all likelihood we just get one slow build. I'm just adding in the human factor of "something always goes wrong".
647 2016-04-21T19:58:48  *** cryptapus_ has quit IRC
648 2016-04-21T19:59:00  <jtimon> the good old trick of lowering expectations as an insurance ;)
649 2016-04-21T19:59:27  <cfields> heh
650 2016-04-21T20:01:24  <cfields> sipa: would you prefer that I hold off on the c++11 PR until after segwit? I don't imagine it would interfere, but it could cause a little unforeseen distraction for builders trying to test if it causes any build issues
651 2016-04-21T20:01:49  <sipa> cfields: nah, go ahead
652 2016-04-21T20:02:23  <cfields> ok
653 2016-04-21T20:02:42  <BlueMatt> ffs...totally just realized the meeting happened :'(
654 2016-04-21T20:02:50  <BlueMatt> and I was here, just not reading :(
655 2016-04-21T20:04:19  <gmaxwell> if only someone pinged you at the start.
656 2016-04-21T20:04:48  <gmaxwell> Now we can theorize on the BlueMatt/jtimon exclusion principle.
657 2016-04-21T20:06:06  <BlueMatt> i know, I know...I saw the ping and then went and did other things with a mental note to come back and see what it was
658 2016-04-21T20:07:10  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: well in any case, you didn't miss much. We assigned you to review all of segwit for us, and also to make sure blocks relay under it faster than they do today.  By next tuesday.
659 2016-04-21T20:07:59  <BlueMatt> that seems....agressive...I'm travelling this weekend again
660 2016-04-21T20:20:02  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
661 2016-04-21T20:21:08  *** Cory has quit IRC
662 2016-04-21T20:21:25  *** jannes has quit IRC
663 2016-04-21T20:29:25  <sipa> BlueMatt: priorities...
664 2016-04-21T20:30:42  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
665 2016-04-21T20:30:54  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: well okay, then you can have until thursday to get the improvements widely deployed.
666 2016-04-21T20:31:02  <BlueMatt> heh
667 2016-04-21T20:31:19  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
668 2016-04-21T20:33:31  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
669 2016-04-21T20:35:05  *** bysherper has quit IRC
670 2016-04-21T20:35:44  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
671 2016-04-21T20:43:34  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
672 2016-04-21T20:46:40  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
673 2016-04-21T20:51:35  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
674 2016-04-21T20:53:32  *** bysherper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
675 2016-04-21T20:55:56  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
676 2016-04-21T20:57:22  *** earlest has quit IRC
677 2016-04-21T20:58:25  *** cryptapus_afk is now known as cryptapus
678 2016-04-21T21:01:02  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
679 2016-04-21T21:28:02  *** mrkent__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
680 2016-04-21T21:29:43  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
681 2016-04-21T21:49:35  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682 2016-04-21T21:50:05  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
683 2016-04-21T21:53:33  *** bysherper has quit IRC
684 2016-04-21T22:04:04  *** arowser has quit IRC
685 2016-04-21T22:04:31  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
686 2016-04-21T22:05:28  *** d_t has quit IRC
687 2016-04-21T22:05:52  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
688 2016-04-21T22:07:04  *** murch has quit IRC
689 2016-04-21T22:07:43  *** face has quit IRC
690 2016-04-21T22:08:01  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
691 2016-04-21T22:25:05  *** bysherper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
692 2016-04-21T22:28:39  *** earlest has quit IRC
693 2016-04-21T22:29:10  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
694 2016-04-21T22:37:55  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
695 2016-04-21T22:44:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
696 2016-04-21T22:48:59  *** TomMc has quit IRC
697 2016-04-21T23:06:43  *** kangx has quit IRC
698 2016-04-21T23:18:13  *** jtimon has quit IRC
699 2016-04-21T23:20:07  *** zooko has quit IRC
700 2016-04-21T23:41:36  *** PRab_ has quit IRC
701 2016-04-21T23:51:30  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev