1 2018-09-13T00:05:37  *** grubles has quit IRC
  2 2018-09-13T00:07:15  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  3 2018-09-13T00:14:55  *** grubles has quit IRC
  4 2018-09-13T00:35:54  *** Kvaciral has quit IRC
  5 2018-09-13T00:42:14  <pierre_rochard> ken2812221: I took a look at #14007 in bitcoinacks.com, I wasn't picking up "tack" or "re-ack" in my parser, that's fixed now. Please don't hesitate to file an issue or PM me if you notice inconsistencies, I do want this to be a reliable tool
  6 2018-09-13T00:42:17  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14007 | tests: Run functional test on Windows and enable it on Appveyor by ken2812221 · Pull Request #14007 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  7 2018-09-13T00:44:04  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2018-09-13T00:49:26  *** promag has quit IRC
  9 2018-09-13T00:51:20  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 10 2018-09-13T00:51:37  *** Kvaciral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2018-09-13T00:52:08  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 12 2018-09-13T00:53:14  *** dqx has quit IRC
 13 2018-09-13T00:53:46  *** drexl has quit IRC
 14 2018-09-13T00:54:35  *** Krellan has quit IRC
 15 2018-09-13T00:55:17  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 16 2018-09-13T00:55:27  *** promag has quit IRC
 17 2018-09-13T00:59:37  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2018-09-13T01:14:39  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2018-09-13T01:19:46  *** farmerwampum_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2018-09-13T01:21:18  *** farmerwampum has quit IRC
 21 2018-09-13T01:21:18  *** farmerwampum_ is now known as farmerwampum
 22 2018-09-13T01:34:47  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2018-09-13T01:38:55  *** promag has quit IRC
 24 2018-09-13T01:46:22  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
 25 2018-09-13T01:52:47  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 26 2018-09-13T01:57:13  *** promag has quit IRC
 27 2018-09-13T02:00:03  *** grubles has quit IRC
 28 2018-09-13T02:08:27  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 29 2018-09-13T02:21:17  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 30 2018-09-13T02:21:54  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2018-09-13T02:26:09  *** promag has quit IRC
 32 2018-09-13T02:32:12  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2018-09-13T02:36:25  *** promag has quit IRC
 34 2018-09-13T02:51:18  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 35 2018-09-13T02:52:05  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2018-09-13T02:55:51  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
 37 2018-09-13T02:59:21  *** promag has quit IRC
 38 2018-09-13T03:02:58  *** Krellan has quit IRC
 39 2018-09-13T03:03:40  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 40 2018-09-13T03:29:44  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2018-09-13T03:34:13  *** promag has quit IRC
 42 2018-09-13T03:52:00  *** miknotauro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2018-09-13T03:54:26  *** itaseski has quit IRC
 44 2018-09-13T04:08:24  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2018-09-13T04:12:33  *** promag has quit IRC
 46 2018-09-13T04:12:42  <kallewoof> jimpo: reading https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/725#pullrequestreview-154741923 it looks like you're suggesting the proof of funds should be a (fakeish) transaction, and the messsage signing should not be. Am I understanding that right? If so, it seems like you could just do transaction in both cases to simplify the spec. I.e. for signing message, craft two txs with the latter spending the former and former using
 47 2018-09-13T04:12:42  <kallewoof> scriptPubKey of proof
 48 2018-09-13T04:17:51  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2018-09-13T04:22:12  *** promag has quit IRC
 50 2018-09-13T04:40:03  *** jrayhawk has quit IRC
 51 2018-09-13T04:40:52  *** jrayhawk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 52 2018-09-13T04:48:30  *** dongcarl has quit IRC
 53 2018-09-13T05:08:16  *** Krellan has quit IRC
 54 2018-09-13T05:15:10  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 55 2018-09-13T05:19:52  *** promag has quit IRC
 56 2018-09-13T05:23:51  *** YLuRIE9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 57 2018-09-13T05:25:35  *** YLuRIE9 has quit IRC
 58 2018-09-13T05:28:59  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 59 2018-09-13T06:08:08  <jimpo> kallewoof: What about the data being signed? If I wanted you to sign an arbitrary message, would it be in an OP_RETURN or something?
 60 2018-09-13T06:09:06  <kallewoof> jimpo: for proof of funds? I am thinking there'd be a txin with prevout=<sighash> and n=0 or something (where <sighash> includes the message)
 61 2018-09-13T06:09:29  <kallewoof> you meant for signmessage, actually. same thing though.
 62 2018-09-13T06:09:30  <jimpo> Yeah, I think you're understanding me right. But I'm suggesting using the fake transaction to generate the sighash, but as for as actual RPC messages and payloads and stuff, end users would just interact with the proof container, not the transaction itself.
 63 2018-09-13T06:10:04  <kallewoof> right
 64 2018-09-13T06:10:04  <jimpo> :-/ For sign message, that just seems overcomplicated
 65 2018-09-13T06:10:56  <kallewoof> I have already had people object to signmessage being a transaction for UI reasons (e.g. the trezor people).
 66 2018-09-13T06:11:15  <jimpo> manufacturing a tx for proof of funds makes sense to me because you are saying that this transaction with these already exiting UTXOs could actually exist
 67 2018-09-13T06:11:25  <kallewoof> Right.
 68 2018-09-13T06:11:44  <jimpo> but for sign message, manufacturing two dummy transactions seems very artificial and I don't see the benefit
 69 2018-09-13T06:12:34  *** Krellan has quit IRC
 70 2018-09-13T06:12:54  <kallewoof> The only benefit would be in that the two protocols "meet up" after the custom tx creation point. It's not a big deal IMO.
 71 2018-09-13T06:13:34  <jimpo> Yeah, I see them meeting up at the sighash point :-)
 72 2018-09-13T06:14:18  <kallewoof> I should probably write the code for this to geta better idea for what is actually necessary.
 73 2018-09-13T06:27:58  *** Guest26637 has quit IRC
 74 2018-09-13T06:28:24  *** jarthur has quit IRC
 75 2018-09-13T06:31:16  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 76 2018-09-13T06:53:27  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2018-09-13T06:57:42  *** promag has quit IRC
 78 2018-09-13T07:01:27  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 79 2018-09-13T07:03:07  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2018-09-13T07:05:34  *** promag has quit IRC
 81 2018-09-13T07:05:57  *** arubi has quit IRC
 82 2018-09-13T07:06:21  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 83 2018-09-13T07:11:44  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2018-09-13T07:15:53  *** promag has quit IRC
 85 2018-09-13T07:35:08  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2018-09-13T07:35:09  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
 87 2018-09-13T07:37:41  *** morcos has quit IRC
 88 2018-09-13T07:37:58  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2018-09-13T07:49:33  *** Krellan has quit IRC
 90 2018-09-13T08:09:44  <wumpus> oh noo another linter
 91 2018-09-13T08:10:35  <wumpus> so tired of this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14205#issuecomment-420921267
 92 2018-09-13T08:14:26  <wumpus> can you all please start working on user-facing, or network-facing issues, not this endless fluffing of the source cdoe
 93 2018-09-13T08:18:07  <wumpus> "oh no, someone used the wrong word for NULL, we must make sure this NEVER happens again"
 94 2018-09-13T08:22:34  *** elichai2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2018-09-13T08:24:33  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2018-09-13T08:25:58  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2018-09-13T08:26:19  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2018-09-13T08:32:43  <wumpus> while issues that people report pretty much go ignored: say, #14200
 99 2018-09-13T08:32:44  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14200 | bitcoind aborts with boost exception · Issue #14200 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
100 2018-09-13T08:33:55  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
101 2018-09-13T08:34:58  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
102 2018-09-13T08:45:18  <wumpus> sorry :-(
103 2018-09-13T08:54:04  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
104 2018-09-13T08:55:32  <luke-jr> wumpus: you're not wrong
105 2018-09-13T08:57:38  *** Zenton has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2018-09-13T08:59:12  <luke-jr> wumpus: my manpage has EINVAL as a possible return value..
107 2018-09-13T08:59:44  <wumpus> luke-jr: can you pastebin it please
108 2018-09-13T09:00:09  <luke-jr> just posted here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14200#issuecomment-420935509
109 2018-09-13T09:00:14  <wumpus> oh! great
110 2018-09-13T09:00:24  <wumpus> apparently you have a much more extensive manpage
111 2018-09-13T09:00:48  <luke-jr> IEEE/The Open Group                                       2013                               PTHREAD_COND_TIMEDWAIT(3P)
112 2018-09-13T09:01:23  <wumpus> LinuxThreads                                                                            PTHREAD_COND(3)
113 2018-09-13T09:01:36  <luke-jr> interesting
114 2018-09-13T09:01:55  <luke-jr> sys-apps/man-pages-posix has a non-standard license; maybe Debian considers it non-free
115 2018-09-13T09:02:10  <luke-jr> (it requires deviations from the POSIX standard to be explicitly noted)
116 2018-09-13T09:02:49  *** echonaut has quit IRC
117 2018-09-13T09:03:11  *** echonaut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2018-09-13T09:03:13  <wumpus> so I guess mine describes linux's specific behavior, and the one you have the standard, which is more useful in this case
119 2018-09-13T09:03:37  <luke-jr> well, this EINVAL sounds pretty implementation-specific
120 2018-09-13T09:03:48  <luke-jr> unless there's a standard limit on the abstime param
121 2018-09-13T09:04:21  <luke-jr> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_cond_timedwait.html says [EINVAL] The value specified by abstime is invalid.
122 2018-09-13T09:05:54  <luke-jr> following the "this version is outdated" link at the top has the explicit limits
123 2018-09-13T09:06:28  <luke-jr> Change history has Issue 6: IEEE Std 1003.1-2001/Cor 2-2004, item XSH/TC2/D6/91 is applied, updating the ERRORS section to remove the error case related to abstime from the pthread_cond_wait() function, and to make the error case related to abstime mandatory for pthread_cond_timedwait() for consistency with other functions.
124 2018-09-13T09:06:39  <luke-jr> so I guess this was to make the failure deterministic?
125 2018-09-13T09:06:48  <wumpus> yes, makes sense
126 2018-09-13T09:07:28  <wumpus> an invalid *absolute* time passed in would be really strange
127 2018-09-13T09:08:23  <wumpus> I can see relative times ending up all over the place, including negative, but absolute ones
128 2018-09-13T09:08:44  <luke-jr> yes, an absolute max is silly here :/
129 2018-09-13T09:09:13  <luke-jr> oh, the nanosecond value is a *part*
130 2018-09-13T09:09:31  <luke-jr> ie, the 1000mil should overflow into seconds
131 2018-09-13T09:10:10  <wumpus> yes, nanoseconds field ending up >= 1000 million would be unequivocally wrong
132 2018-09-13T09:10:46  <luke-jr> What's this boost::exception_detail::clone_impl<boost::exception_detail::error_info_injectorboost::condition_error  above?
133 2018-09-13T09:11:53  <luke-jr> maybe there's an invalid object somewhere?
134 2018-09-13T09:11:56  <wumpus> I don't know; if this was simple C code we'd probably already have found the problem, all this c++/boost exception verboseness adds nothing
135 2018-09-13T09:12:26  <wumpus> all those conversions between time formats, too
136 2018-09-13T09:12:39  <wumpus> what is a boost::chrono::system_clock::time_point, even
137 2018-09-13T09:13:26  <luke-jr> does GDB work on WSL?
138 2018-09-13T09:13:38  <wumpus> it's not a simple object wrapping seconds and nano/microseconds at least...
139 2018-09-13T09:13:46  <luke-jr> maybe he can get a backtrace and/or run some print commands
140 2018-09-13T09:14:02  <wumpus> I don't know
141 2018-09-13T09:16:18  <wumpus> so it is likely that timeToWaitFor passed to wait_unti is invalid, it would probably help trying to print that
142 2018-09-13T09:16:47  <wumpus> assuming this uses the BOOST_VERSION >= 105000 arm, of course
143 2018-09-13T09:17:14  <luke-jr> I figure a backtrace will help find out what we're actually using for the timeout object on our end
144 2018-09-13T09:17:21  <wumpus> if it uses the other one with toPosixTime, well here be dragons...
145 2018-09-13T09:17:29  <luke-jr> no point looking at the post-conversions value, since we can already guess it's invalid
146 2018-09-13T09:18:00  <wumpus> timeToWaitFor is the pre-conversion value
147 2018-09-13T09:26:34  <wumpus> we could ask what was the last version that did work, and see if there's been changes to that code since
148 2018-09-13T09:26:56  <wumpus> appaarently 0.16.x is all broken, but they don't say whether 0.15.x worked
149 2018-09-13T09:29:13  <luke-jr> has WSL been around that long? O.o
150 2018-09-13T09:29:39  <wumpus> it's been around for a while (as beta feature)
151 2018-09-13T09:30:32  <wumpus> even years ago when I still had at least one windows computer
152 2018-09-13T09:54:24  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2018-09-13T10:07:36  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
154 2018-09-13T10:07:59  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
155 2018-09-13T10:14:48  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2018-09-13T10:21:04  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
157 2018-09-13T10:27:52  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2018-09-13T10:29:14  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
159 2018-09-13T10:35:17  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
160 2018-09-13T11:16:04  *** setpill has quit IRC
161 2018-09-13T11:18:30  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162 2018-09-13T11:30:44  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2018-09-13T11:32:50  *** setpill has quit IRC
164 2018-09-13T11:33:21  *** Emcy has quit IRC
165 2018-09-13T11:50:43  *** drexl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2018-09-13T12:01:31  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2018-09-13T12:04:09  *** da2ce7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2018-09-13T12:13:05  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
169 2018-09-13T12:18:13  *** da2ce7 has quit IRC
170 2018-09-13T12:20:16  *** promag has quit IRC
171 2018-09-13T12:38:08  *** profmac has quit IRC
172 2018-09-13T12:48:57  <ken2812221> pierre_rochard: thanks!!
173 2018-09-13T12:49:29  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
174 2018-09-13T12:56:21  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
175 2018-09-13T12:57:22  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2018-09-13T13:08:27  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
177 2018-09-13T13:26:34  *** Mrrt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
178 2018-09-13T13:35:41  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
179 2018-09-13T14:14:37  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2018-09-13T14:15:39  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
181 2018-09-13T14:26:37  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182 2018-09-13T14:35:22  *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
183 2018-09-13T14:55:15  *** nullptr| has quit IRC
184 2018-09-13T14:57:11  *** nullptr| has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
185 2018-09-13T15:04:55  *** ExtraCrispy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2018-09-13T16:00:17  *** promag has quit IRC
187 2018-09-13T16:30:03  *** esotericnonsense has quit IRC
188 2018-09-13T16:30:29  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
189 2018-09-13T16:31:29  *** esotericnonsense has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
190 2018-09-13T16:42:34  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
191 2018-09-13T16:44:47  *** jhfrontz has quit IRC
192 2018-09-13T16:44:58  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2018-09-13T16:46:55  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
194 2018-09-13T17:03:44  *** Krellan has quit IRC
195 2018-09-13T17:08:51  *** jhfrontz has quit IRC
196 2018-09-13T17:10:23  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
197 2018-09-13T17:11:44  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: interesting, it looks like we have no direct dependency on LIBSSL at all anymore
198 2018-09-13T17:12:06  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2018-09-13T17:12:16  <wumpus> (doing a gitian build just to be sure)
200 2018-09-13T17:13:13  <wumpus> paymentrequestplus.cpp does some manipulation of certificates, but that appears to be part of crypto, not ssl
201 2018-09-13T17:18:26  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
202 2018-09-13T17:22:06  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2018-09-13T17:25:17  <gmaxwell> \O/
204 2018-09-13T17:28:15  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
205 2018-09-13T17:31:04  *** jhfrontz has quit IRC
206 2018-09-13T17:31:30  *** promag has quit IRC
207 2018-09-13T17:38:25  *** timothy has quit IRC
208 2018-09-13T17:47:07  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
209 2018-09-13T17:49:32  *** Zenton has quit IRC
210 2018-09-13T18:00:20  *** jarthur has quit IRC
211 2018-09-13T18:00:28  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212 2018-09-13T18:10:26  *** jarthur has quit IRC
213 2018-09-13T18:10:32  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
214 2018-09-13T18:19:51  *** grubles has quit IRC
215 2018-09-13T18:21:25  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
216 2018-09-13T18:22:33  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2018-09-13T18:24:16  *** elichai2 has quit IRC
218 2018-09-13T18:24:31  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
219 2018-09-13T18:24:57  *** Krellan has quit IRC
220 2018-09-13T18:26:38  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
221 2018-09-13T18:30:06  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
222 2018-09-13T18:30:10  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2018-09-13T18:30:18  *** queip has quit IRC
224 2018-09-13T18:30:22  *** contrapumpkin has quit IRC
225 2018-09-13T18:31:26  *** copumpkin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2018-09-13T18:34:42  *** Krellan has quit IRC
227 2018-09-13T18:56:47  *** clarkmoody has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2018-09-13T18:57:58  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
229 2018-09-13T19:00:05  <wumpus> #startmeeting
230 2018-09-13T19:00:05  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 13 19:00:05 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
231 2018-09-13T19:00:05  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
232 2018-09-13T19:00:06  <MarcoFalke> Would have to remove the #include of libssl as well?
233 2018-09-13T19:00:13  <MarcoFalke> oh meeting
234 2018-09-13T19:00:16  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: yep
235 2018-09-13T19:00:17  <provoostenator> hi
236 2018-09-13T19:00:24  <promag> hi
237 2018-09-13T19:00:36  <MarcoFalke> I wonder if it is possible to build openssl with just libcrypto and not libssl
238 2018-09-13T19:01:17  <jnewbery> hi
239 2018-09-13T19:01:49  <wumpus> any proposed topics?
240 2018-09-13T19:01:54  <jonasschnelli> hi
241 2018-09-13T19:01:59  <meshcollider> Hi
242 2018-09-13T19:02:04  <MarcoFalke> Have we had issues reported for rc3 of 0.17.0?
243 2018-09-13T19:02:04  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
244 2018-09-13T19:02:22  <provoostenator> MarcoFalke: probably not: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/4597
245 2018-09-13T19:02:58  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: I don't think so
246 2018-09-13T19:02:59  <achow101> hi
247 2018-09-13T19:03:07  <achow101> MarcoFalke: there was that thing sipa pointed out
248 2018-09-13T19:03:09  <achow101> with psbt
249 2018-09-13T19:03:19  <achow101> #14196
250 2018-09-13T19:03:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14196 | [0.17][psbt] always drop the unnecessary utxo and convert non-witness utxo to witness when necessary by achow101 · Pull Request #14196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHubAsset 1Asset 1
251 2018-09-13T19:03:54  <achow101> I'm not sure if it is necessarily a bug, it is annoying though when encountered
252 2018-09-13T19:04:11  <promag> regarding missing pieces for multi wallets, hope to get #13100 and #13339 done shortly
253 2018-09-13T19:04:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13100 | gui: Add dynamic wallets support by promag · Pull Request #13100 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
254 2018-09-13T19:04:16  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13339 | wallet: Replace %w by wallet name in -walletnotify script by promag · Pull Request #13339 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
255 2018-09-13T19:04:34  <MarcoFalke> Ok, we should put that up as high priority and then target rc4 end of next week?
256 2018-09-13T19:05:01  <wumpus> yes, good idea
257 2018-09-13T19:05:08  <sipa> i encountered this issue while actually trying to use psbt btw :)
258 2018-09-13T19:05:23  <MarcoFalke> Also I'd like to see the release notes amended with the list of merged changes. wumpus mind doing that or sharing the script :) ?
259 2018-09-13T19:05:36  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: huh didn't I add those?
260 2018-09-13T19:05:50  <wumpus> last week was like a blur
261 2018-09-13T19:06:03  <sipa> still too busy this week, but if someone could add scantxoutset to the release notes?
262 2018-09-13T19:06:07  *** Krellan has quit IRC
263 2018-09-13T19:06:49  <wumpus> yes I actually added the PRs and authors: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/0.17.0-Release-notes
264 2018-09-13T19:06:54  <MarcoFalke> wumpus: Thx. I've misssed yesterdays commit
265 2018-09-13T19:08:22  <jonasschnelli> Anyone up for writing a short part about scantxoutset for the 0.17 release notes?
266 2018-09-13T19:08:27  <wumpus> as for sharing the script, if you don't mind it's a mess, will push it into devtools soon
267 2018-09-13T19:09:25  <promag> I can give a try to scantxoutset release notes
268 2018-09-13T19:09:46  <wumpus> promag: thanks!
269 2018-09-13T19:10:09  <jnewbery> some quick proposed topics: refactor/linter PRs , wallet maintainer , archiving meeting notes
270 2018-09-13T19:10:37  <jonasschnelli> promag: thanks!
271 2018-09-13T19:11:10  <wumpus> added 14197 to high prio
272 2018-09-13T19:11:32  <promag> #14197
273 2018-09-13T19:11:34  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14197 | [psbt] Convert non-witness UTXOs to witness if witness sig created by achow101 · Pull Request #14197 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
274 2018-09-13T19:11:40  <wumpus> #topic refactor/linter PRs
275 2018-09-13T19:11:56  <wumpus> stop it stop it stop it stop it stop it stop it stop it stop it
276 2018-09-13T19:11:58  <wumpus> thx :p
277 2018-09-13T19:12:07  <jnewbery> I think a lot of people get the sense that there are a lot of refactor/linter PRs these days
278 2018-09-13T19:12:50  <wumpus> yes, it's too often
279 2018-09-13T19:12:53  <jnewbery> I'd hate to discourage any contributions, but I think it would be a better use of reviewer time and people would enjoy working on the project more if more PRs were focused on features/bugfixes :)
280 2018-09-13T19:12:55  <achow101> wumpus: unfortunately practicalswift isn't here to hear that
281 2018-09-13T19:13:05  <meshcollider> Lol
282 2018-09-13T19:13:15  <promag> we can write a lint to prevent new linters with grep
283 2018-09-13T19:13:58  <gmaxwell> I would describe the concern more broadly as there is a significant fraction of all PRs (maybe a majority) with basically no articulable direct or near term benefit to users... or even just exciting changes.  In any project there is going to be some amount of house keeping for sure, and I'm super happy people want to work on bits of cleanup.
284 2018-09-13T19:14:00  <wumpus> I've told him a few times that tcleanups are okay, but not too often, say once a month or so, but they just keep coming, it's oversnowing the useful PRs
285 2018-09-13T19:14:01  <provoostenator> I like linters and other techniques to produce code consistentency, but obviously it shouldn't be become an obsession.
286 2018-09-13T19:14:24  <wumpus> it's becoming an obsession for me (in the negative sense)
287 2018-09-13T19:14:31  <gmaxwell> I feel really bad about finding myself in a position of saying "NAK. Your code is probably fine, but it's not worth anyones time to review it because it doesn't improve things enough."
288 2018-09-13T19:14:37  <wumpus> if this keeps up, I'll close them blindly
289 2018-09-13T19:14:42  <ryanofsky> i don't understand why you can't just tag them and look at the tag once a month
290 2018-09-13T19:14:47  <provoostenator> Maybe someone should just combine them all in one giant lint PR and come back in a few months?
291 2018-09-13T19:15:08  <wumpus> who doesn't he do that himself though?
292 2018-09-13T19:15:17  <gmaxwell> ryanofsky: because 'when you look' doesn't change the fact that there is a review/correctness burden.
293 2018-09-13T19:15:35  <wumpus> because some of us actually have to look at the list of allPRs and this is really discouraging
294 2018-09-13T19:15:50  <jnewbery> I don't think any more needs to be said about any individual contributor, but if we can all rate limit own own refactor PRs, I think we'd appreciate it
295 2018-09-13T19:16:30  <wumpus> yes, please
296 2018-09-13T19:16:53  <MarcoFalke> ryanofsky: They show up in the list of pulls by default
297 2018-09-13T19:16:58  <promag> however those monthly cleanups can be bigger and harder to merge
298 2018-09-13T19:17:49  <gmaxwell> Also it's a lot easier to churn out 'safe'  refactor/cleanup changes and it's also easier to review/comment on them, so it changes the balance of activity in the project in general.
299 2018-09-13T19:17:58  <MarcoFalke> Can we add a pull request GitHub template that asks for clear motivation of the changes?
300 2018-09-13T19:18:05  <wumpus> the problem is that our proojct is one big bottleneck, I think if it was divided into hierarchical subsystems like Linux it'd be better, but it's not really possible to have that workflow with github
301 2018-09-13T19:18:28  <wumpus> all proposed changes end up in one big list
302 2018-09-13T19:18:43  <MarcoFalke> I.e. The changes need to improve user experience or significantly improve developer experience
303 2018-09-13T19:18:59  <gmaxwell> wumpus: dunno there, I mean, even if its subsystems, all of them need to be free of exploitable crashes. :) (okay maybe a few subsystems would really be isolated from any possible hostile input...)
304 2018-09-13T19:19:10  <wumpus> e.g. https://blog.ffwll.ch/2017/08/github-why-cant-host-the-kernel.html
305 2018-09-13T19:19:11  <jnewbery> wumpus: is that true? If wallet and node were better separated, would it be possible to have a master branch and a wallet dev branch for example?
306 2018-09-13T19:19:18  <jonasschnelli> should we submodule the test system?
307 2018-09-13T19:19:21  <gmaxwell> MarcoFalke: I also was thinking about articulate the benefit.
308 2018-09-13T19:19:28  <meshcollider> wumpus: that's the point of GitHub "projects" isn't it
309 2018-09-13T19:19:47  <gmaxwell> er, directing people to articulate the benefit.
310 2018-09-13T19:19:52  <MarcoFalke> yeah ^
311 2018-09-13T19:19:59  <wumpus> ideally I don't want to have to look at every PR individually anymore, in the case of Linux there's subsystem maintainers that make their own tree of updates and it can be merged (or rejected) at one
312 2018-09-13T19:20:30  <gmaxwell> I do think we do want general code tidying some too... but those shouldn't be a signficant fraction of the PR flow.
313 2018-09-13T19:20:35  <wumpus> jnewbery: this is not a technical issue about separation in the source tree, Linux is also one big tree
314 2018-09-13T19:20:54  <jnewbery> wumpus: I'll read the danvet post
315 2018-09-13T19:20:56  <wumpus> it's just that top-level PRs don't really scale
316 2018-09-13T19:21:28  <wumpus> I can't manually, humanly, handle 200+ PRs, sorry
317 2018-09-13T19:21:55  <jnewbery> proposed topic: wallet maintainer
318 2018-09-13T19:22:03  <MarcoFalke> I have seen that practicalswift also runs a bot(?) to comment on pull request directly with feedback harvested from clang-tidy
319 2018-09-13T19:22:04  <wumpus> and if it keeps going like this, at some point it's going to break down
320 2018-09-13T19:22:18  <MarcoFalke> I think these are more useful than linters
321 2018-09-13T19:22:40  <sipa> i plan to do more wallet work soon, to push descriptors and other things forward
322 2018-09-13T19:22:43  <wumpus> so we need a different way of woring
323 2018-09-13T19:22:59  <sipa> now i have to run, sorry; will be back next week
324 2018-09-13T19:23:08  <wumpus> later sipa
325 2018-09-13T19:23:08  <promag> o/
326 2018-09-13T19:23:37  <promag> MarcoFalke: agree ^
327 2018-09-13T19:24:21  <wumpus> #topic wallet maintainer
328 2018-09-13T19:25:04  <wumpus> MarcoFalke> I.e. The changes need to improve user experience or significantly improve developer experience <- yes
329 2018-09-13T19:25:25  <MarcoFalke> ok, will write up something today
330 2018-09-13T19:25:34  <MarcoFalke> sipa is gone, so let's assign him to be wallet maintainer?
331 2018-09-13T19:25:46  <gmaxwell> ACK.
332 2018-09-13T19:25:50  <achow101> +1
333 2018-09-13T19:25:51  <sdaftuar> i thought we already did that
334 2018-09-13T19:25:53  <jnewbery> I think wumpus has wanted a wallet maintainer for a while, and sipa is probably too busy to take that role. I wonder if there are any actions we can take to find someone to be wallet maintainer in, say, the next six months
335 2018-09-13T19:25:53  <meshcollider> I feel like he has already been assigned that role many times
336 2018-09-13T19:26:03  <wumpus> best if it fixes a reported issue, or something that is clearly either a problem from a user perspective, a performance or security issue, etc
337 2018-09-13T19:26:04  <promag> vote jnewbery for wallet maintainer :P
338 2018-09-13T19:26:11  <jnewbery> promag: -1
339 2018-09-13T19:26:25  <provoostenator> What is the wallet maintainer job description?
340 2018-09-13T19:26:25  <wumpus> it's like a game of hot potato
341 2018-09-13T19:26:29  <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: I am not aware of any single person that really knows what is going on in the wallet
342 2018-09-13T19:26:47  <pierre_rochard> ryanofsky?
343 2018-09-13T19:26:50  <jnewbery> MarcoFalke: that makes everyone equally qualified
344 2018-09-13T19:26:51  <wumpus> provoostenator: review and merge wallet changes
345 2018-09-13T19:26:55  <gmaxwell> sipa is closest, mostly as a side effect of knowing everything.
346 2018-09-13T19:27:00  <wumpus> provoostenator: (most importantly, understand them)
347 2018-09-13T19:27:22  <jonasschnelli> I think sipa is kinda the wallet maintainer... or am I wrong?
348 2018-09-13T19:27:24  <jnewbery> but seriuosly, I think it's more important to have a sensitivity to what they don't know rather than have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything
349 2018-09-13T19:27:35  <provoostenator> Well, some degree of not understanding can be compensated by not merging without ACK's from people who do.
350 2018-09-13T19:27:45  <wumpus> yes, exactly jnewbery
351 2018-09-13T19:27:51  <jnewbery> and it's only 15k lines of code. How difficult can it be?
352 2018-09-13T19:27:54  <wumpus> it's a matter of judgement I guess
353 2018-09-13T19:28:00  <gmaxwell> jnewbery: tada, disqualified. :P
354 2018-09-13T19:28:23  <achow101> jnewbery: I think it's a bit cleaner now with accounts gone
355 2018-09-13T19:28:32  <achow101> less idiotic to understand
356 2018-09-13T19:28:45  <wumpus> it's not even that bad if you dn't fully understand it now, if you're willing to learn it
357 2018-09-13T19:29:01  <MarcoFalke> So I believe the closest to a wallet maintainer would be the people that worked most on it in the last two releases
358 2018-09-13T19:29:01  <jnewbery> my point in raising this topic is not "let's find a wallet maintainer today", but "can we take steps now to identify someone who might be a good wallet maintainer in a few months"
359 2018-09-13T19:29:04  <wumpus> yes, getting rid of accounts did make it less crazy
360 2018-09-13T19:29:18  <jnewbery> It seems that waiting around for someone to volunteer or step up hasn't really worked
361 2018-09-13T19:29:28  <gmaxwell> having to support old stuff is just a pain. It's hard to do without having had a lot of exposure to the history as there are many poorly documented properties that the existing stuff obeys.
362 2018-09-13T19:29:33  <wumpus> I wonder how Linus picks subsystem maintainers
363 2018-09-13T19:29:52  <wumpus> though, I guess, people actually volunteer
364 2018-09-13T19:29:55  <gmaxwell> jnewbery: I dunno, I think things are working in the sense that its becoming simpler and more people are contributing to that part actively than were in the past.
365 2018-09-13T19:30:13  <jnewbery> gmaxwell: we're still too bottlenecked on wumpus
366 2018-09-13T19:30:16  <meshcollider> Make a large wallet PR and the first person GitHub picks as a "suggested reviewer" is the new maintainer
367 2018-09-13T19:30:18  <wumpus> jnewbery: yes
368 2018-09-13T19:30:29  <jnewbery> so we need to make a wumpus bot or delegate to maintainers
369 2018-09-13T19:30:31  <gmaxwell> Github just doesn't really directly facilitate that kind of workflow.
370 2018-09-13T19:30:39  <wumpus> ideally I could just leave for a bit and things would continue
371 2018-09-13T19:30:50  <promag> honestly I think jnewbery has done a great job cleaning and maintaining and improving wallet code
372 2018-09-13T19:31:00  <achow101> the solution is to just upload wumpus's mind and then start 20 instances of him :p
373 2018-09-13T19:31:05  <gmaxwell> like why are we actually bottlenecked on wumpus?  perhaps wumpus needs to start tagging things with "I'm not going to merge this PR"
374 2018-09-13T19:31:15  <wumpus> achow101: yes!
375 2018-09-13T19:31:16  <provoostenator> I'd be fine with jnewbery doing this as well.
376 2018-09-13T19:31:37  <meshcollider> jnewbery: in all honesty, would you not want the role
377 2018-09-13T19:31:41  <wumpus> me too
378 2018-09-13T19:31:42  <jamesob> instagibbs seems to know wallet pretty well
379 2018-09-13T19:31:44  <gmaxwell> it's not like there is an actual technical physical bottleneck on wumpus.
380 2018-09-13T19:31:59  <jnewbery> I'm flattered, honestly, but already too busy with bitcoin optech, residency stuff, etc
381 2018-09-13T19:32:31  <jnewbery> perhaps something for discussion in tokyo
382 2018-09-13T19:32:40  <MarcoFalke> I think the bottleneck is not clicking the merge button (any of the 4 maintainers can do this)
383 2018-09-13T19:32:52  <MarcoFalke> The bottleneck is review and signing off on the merge
384 2018-09-13T19:32:59  <MarcoFalke> (when ready)
385 2018-09-13T19:33:12  <wumpus> yes, which is not always an easy judgement, but still
386 2018-09-13T19:33:19  <provoostenator> So it's more like a "sudo ACK"?
387 2018-09-13T19:33:37  <gmaxwell> well if we're concerned about review cycles then we need to talk about focusing resources on whats important. So perhaps more than 'foo maintainer' we need someone curating the priority list for a subsystem.
388 2018-09-13T19:33:41  <wumpus> if you know a certain part of the code well enough you could be maintainer of it
389 2018-09-13T19:33:53  <wumpus> like, in Linux, if you wrote a certain driver, you're pretty much maintainer of it by default
390 2018-09-13T19:34:10  <gmaxwell> the high priority PRs things helps, at least as we close for a release...
391 2018-09-13T19:34:24  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
392 2018-09-13T19:34:26  <MarcoFalke> We could assign jnewbery and ryanofsky and other contributors the right to sign off on wallet changes and then some maintainer merges the changes.
393 2018-09-13T19:34:33  <MarcoFalke> So have more than one wallet maintainer
394 2018-09-13T19:34:37  <wumpus> well the maintainer of a subsystem would also curate prioriteit
395 2018-09-13T19:34:47  <wumpus> the problems seems to be finding people, *NOT* finding things for them to do :)
396 2018-09-13T19:34:49  <achow101> MarcoFalke: isn't that the point of ACK's though?
397 2018-09-13T19:34:54  <meshcollider> MarcoFalke: isn't that basically just an ACK then
398 2018-09-13T19:35:03  <promag> right achow101
399 2018-09-13T19:35:20  <MarcoFalke> Not every ACK means merge
400 2018-09-13T19:35:39  <gmaxwell> wumpus: well curating priority projects for a subsystem is less risky task, probably more people willing to do it, and fewer concerns about whos doing it.
401 2018-09-13T19:35:40  <MarcoFalke> more like the "sudo ACK" (provoostenator)
402 2018-09-13T19:35:42  <wumpus> well it's more subtle than that, otherwise it  could jsut be a bot
403 2018-09-13T19:36:08  <MarcoFalke> In the future I want it to be done by a bot, but thats a differnt topic
404 2018-09-13T19:36:10  <wumpus> you also have to have a feeling who is the right person to ACK something
405 2018-09-13T19:36:21  <wumpus> which would be possible if someone was a maintainer of that subsystem
406 2018-09-13T19:36:30  <provoostenator> Does Github allow putting a "maintainer" badge on someone so it's more obvious for people that these maintainer ACK's are required / strongly recommended.
407 2018-09-13T19:36:32  <wumpus> but we're circling around
408 2018-09-13T19:36:42  <gmaxwell> like who would actually understand if this is broken or will cause problems down the road, vs who just looked at it and went yep no undefined behavior!
409 2018-09-13T19:36:44  <meshcollider> provoostenator: mo
410 2018-09-13T19:36:46  <meshcollider> No*
411 2018-09-13T19:36:54  <wumpus> gmaxwell: righ
412 2018-09-13T19:37:21  <wumpus> anyhow, if someone wants to be wallet maintainer, or maintainer of some other subsystem, let me know
413 2018-09-13T19:37:30  <clarkmoody> provoostenator: maintainers.md
414 2018-09-13T19:37:51  <wumpus> clarkmoody: yep
415 2018-09-13T19:37:56  <provoostenator> Ok, that works.
416 2018-09-13T19:38:07  <wumpus> you can define a path there, and who is maintainer, I think github even parses it somehow
417 2018-09-13T19:38:22  <promag> and what should a maintainer do? :P
418 2018-09-13T19:38:25  <meshcollider> So in terms of steps, be more active I'm looking for someone to push into the role? What else is possible
419 2018-09-13T19:38:30  *** miknotauro has quit IRC
420 2018-09-13T19:38:31  <meshcollider> In*
421 2018-09-13T19:38:56  <provoostenator> https://blog.github.com/2017-07-06-introducing-code-owners/
422 2018-09-13T19:38:58  <gmaxwell> I think we should all act as though we were the maintainers of things more.
423 2018-09-13T19:39:04  <jnewbery> meshcollider: yes, I think so
424 2018-09-13T19:39:20  <wumpus> promag: just be very active in maintaining a piece of code, like, review all PRs that change it, judge when a change is good, etc
425 2018-09-13T19:39:41  <gmaxwell> not only does this potentially reduce work for others, but it helps identify people who are organically doing the job anyways. Which is, for the most part, what other projects do.
426 2018-09-13T19:39:56  <gmaxwell> I think the issue wumpus struggles with is in part because no one is doing the job already.
427 2018-09-13T19:40:02  <gmaxwell> :)
428 2018-09-13T19:40:30  <gmaxwell> If someone were, it would be both less of an issue, and an easier thing to decide.
429 2018-09-13T19:41:10  <wumpus> I mean I could pull a Guido van Rossum and just stop merging things and let you figure it out for yourself, but I'd prefer to have a saner path forward
430 2018-09-13T19:41:45  <provoostenator> So we can just mark a bunch of people as Code Owners (as well maintainers.md) for the wallet and require review from at least one of them, as a step in the right direction?
431 2018-09-13T19:41:49  <wumpus> but it's not given that I will be doing this forever
432 2018-09-13T19:41:49  <promag> anyhow, if someone wants to be wallet maintainer, or maintainer of some other subsystem, let me know <-- wumpus: they should just step up?
433 2018-09-13T19:42:07  <promag> like, ken2812221 looks like windows maintainer?
434 2018-09-13T19:42:13  <meshcollider> provoostenator: that's effectively how RTM is judged anyway
435 2018-09-13T19:42:15  <wumpus> promag: good idea!
436 2018-09-13T19:43:24  <wumpus> he's doing a great job with the windows unicode support
437 2018-09-13T19:43:55  <gmaxwell> The important thing is actually doing the work, meaning taking a concerted effort to review and understand changes, their short and long term implications-- their impact on the users, network, rest of the code base, their historical context... along with sheparding things along to make sure the required stuff gets done (if not actually doing it themselves)
438 2018-09-13T19:43:57  <wumpus> I'm—somewhat disappointed—that windows still needs so much platform-specific code, but it's better than breaking on non-english people's PCs
439 2018-09-13T19:44:14  <gmaxwell> These are things that almost everyone can do more of.
440 2018-09-13T19:44:43  <wumpus> gmaxwell: agree
441 2018-09-13T19:45:23  <wumpus> if someone was doing the work then assigning someone a maintainer label was easy
442 2018-09-13T19:45:33  <wumpus> that's how jonasschnelli became GUI maintainer, for ex.
443 2018-09-13T19:45:35  <gmaxwell> So I think thats really an action item people can take from this discussion, look for oppturnityies do to more of that yourself, and to help others do the same.
444 2018-09-13T19:46:26  <wumpus> yes
445 2018-09-13T19:47:11  <gmaxwell> opportunities*
446 2018-09-13T19:47:55  <gmaxwell> Were there any other topics? kind of a bummer of a meeting. :)
447 2018-09-13T19:48:09  <meshcollider> John had a third
448 2018-09-13T19:48:29  <jnewbery> I had one more quick one on archiving meeting notes (sorry - didn't mean to take up all the time. Thought they'd all be quick)
449 2018-09-13T19:48:32  <wumpus> #topic archiving meeting notes
450 2018-09-13T19:48:50  <jnewbery> Botbotme is shutting down. not sure if anyone uses it
451 2018-09-13T19:48:51  <jnewbery> https://lincolnloop.com/blog/saying-goodbye-botbotme/
452 2018-09-13T19:48:52  <wumpus> jnewbery: well it needed to be said, Ithink
453 2018-09-13T19:49:05  *** Mrrt has quit IRC
454 2018-09-13T19:49:07  <jnewbery> I know that the bitcoincore.org meeting notes summaries linked there at least
455 2018-09-13T19:49:29  <jnewbery> meeting notes also link to http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/ , which I think is maintained by aj
456 2018-09-13T19:49:54  <jnewbery> it'd be a shame if that went away at some point. I wonder if it makes sense to keep a mirror of the meeting notes somewher in the project
457 2018-09-13T19:50:07  <achow101> we could have our own logger that publishes to bitcoincore.org?
458 2018-09-13T19:50:10  <meshcollider> Meeting notes or full channel log?
459 2018-09-13T19:50:20  <wumpus> we have aj's logger right?
460 2018-09-13T19:50:24  <gmaxwell> Both would be nice, but seperately.
461 2018-09-13T19:50:32  <jnewbery> meeting notes are most important I think, but yeah both
462 2018-09-13T19:50:50  <wumpus> the meetingbot logs to www.erisian.com.au
463 2018-09-13T19:51:11  <wumpus> as for summaries those should be part of the bitcoincore.org site itself not linked externally
464 2018-09-13T19:51:27  <jnewbery> yes, summaries are at bitcoincore.org
465 2018-09-13T19:51:48  <meshcollider> provoostenator: am I right in thinking you ran a logger at some point?
466 2018-09-13T19:51:50  <wumpus> could also copy the logs there, I gues
467 2018-09-13T19:52:02  <wumpus> would be good to have everything self-contained
468 2018-09-13T19:52:09  <provoostenator> meshcollider: I did, but no longer do
469 2018-09-13T19:52:14  <meshcollider> Ok
470 2018-09-13T19:52:27  <achow101> could we migrate aj's meetbot to bitcoincore.org?
471 2018-09-13T19:52:47  <provoostenator> BotBot server was fairly easy to deploy, so sounds like a good tool for this.
472 2018-09-13T19:53:04  <wumpus> achow101: dunno, but could auto-copy the logs after a meeting
473 2018-09-13T19:53:22  <wumpus> it'll print something like
474 2018-09-13T19:53:22  <wumpus> 21:52 < lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-09-06-19.00.html
475 2018-09-13T19:53:25  <wumpus> 21:52 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-09-06-19.00.txt
476 2018-09-13T19:53:28  <wumpus> 21:52 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-09-06-19.00.log.html
477 2018-09-13T19:53:33  <wumpus> so just a matter of copying those to bitcoincore.org and voila
478 2018-09-13T19:54:15  <meshcollider> Ideally could run both botbot and the meetbot on the bitcoincore.org server directly ?
479 2018-09-13T19:54:18  <provoostenator> Perhaps irc.bitcoincore.org could run such an instance? It's a much nicer format imo.
480 2018-09-13T19:54:21  <wumpus> it needs to be checked into git so I don't think it can happen fully automatically
481 2018-09-13T19:54:37  <provoostenator> Different subdomain means you can skip the Github flow (initially).
482 2018-09-13T19:54:38  <achow101> wumpus: it could run in a sub domain
483 2018-09-13T19:54:56  <MarcoFalke> provoostenator: I would want to host random irc logs on the bitcoincore domain
484 2018-09-13T19:55:19  <MarcoFalke> Can be a completely separate trash.bitcoin-core-dev-logs.domain
485 2018-09-13T19:55:21  <wumpus> these are only logs of the meeting
486 2018-09-13T19:55:35  <provoostenator> You can pick which channel(s) to log. Or are you worried even about what could end up in this channel?
487 2018-09-13T19:55:36  <jamesob> re: cutting down on refactoring PRs: one option might be to add a policy that forces refactoring-only PRs to document how each changed git hunk is covered by tests. If no test exists, obviously the proposing contributor would have to write one.
488 2018-09-13T19:55:48  <wumpus> oh you want to log the entire channel?
489 2018-09-13T19:56:00  <MarcoFalke> Yeah, I think it makes sense
490 2018-09-13T19:56:04  <meshcollider> BotBot currently does and I think that's worth keeping up
491 2018-09-13T19:56:19  <achow101> I think it currently makes more sense to log the entire channel with botbot going down
492 2018-09-13T19:56:42  <provoostenator> I've linked to botbot logs in Github tickets more than once. Whatever tool we use, being able to deep-link to a specific message is very nice.
493 2018-09-13T19:56:50  <wumpus> jamesob: I think that's good policy for any change, yes
494 2018-09-13T19:56:53  <meshcollider> Agree
495 2018-09-13T19:57:12  <MarcoFalke> Can botbot be hosted on GitHub (or at least the assets?)
496 2018-09-13T19:58:02  <jamesob> wumpus: my only reservation is that that's a pretty high burden for large changes from established contributors... but maybe that makes it even more worthwhile :)
497 2018-09-13T19:58:04  <wumpus> it can't run from github
498 2018-09-13T19:58:46  <wumpus> jamesob: the biggest issue here is the volume, not so much the changes themselves, many don't even change the compiled code or are obviously correct like removing an argument
499 2018-09-13T19:59:00  <MarcoFalke> Can it store the logs in a git repo?
500 2018-09-13T19:59:03  <wumpus> jamesob: whichi s okay, but not of 5 of such PRs are opened every day
501 2018-09-13T19:59:30  <meshcollider> MarcoFalke: I'm sure you could turn the log directory into a git repo either way
502 2018-09-13T19:59:46  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: sure, though if commits need to be signed :)
503 2018-09-13T19:59:54  <provoostenator> OTS?
504 2018-09-13T20:00:15  <jamesob> wumpus: very much agreed. I was just thinking that such a policy (plainly advertised in a PR template, say) would filter out half-baked or lazy refactors (or at least allow a justified quick close)
505 2018-09-13T20:00:16  <wumpus> when commigint to bitcoincore.org, really a human needs to be invovled
506 2018-09-13T20:00:18  <meshcollider> Don't need to sign the commits if they're just pushed to a separate meeting-log repo
507 2018-09-13T20:00:26  <MarcoFalke> If it is a binary blob (db) it might not work with git (or GitHub at least)
508 2018-09-13T20:00:36  <wumpus> oh, no it's just text files
509 2018-09-13T20:00:51  <MarcoFalke> kewl
510 2018-09-13T20:00:58  <wumpus> #endmeeting
511 2018-09-13T20:00:58  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Sep 13 20:00:58 2018 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
512 2018-09-13T20:00:58  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-09-13-19.00.html
513 2018-09-13T20:00:58  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-09-13-19.00.txt
514 2018-09-13T20:00:58  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-09-13-19.00.log.html
515 2018-09-13T20:01:00  <promag> jamesob: we already ask to split such pulls to ease review
516 2018-09-13T20:01:39  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
517 2018-09-13T20:01:57  <MarcoFalke> So (1) contact lincolnloop to fetcht the text logs of BotBot (2) put them on GitHub (3) Run a bot somewhere that keeps them up to date and hosts them on some domain?
518 2018-09-13T20:01:59  <promag> jamesob: and how can we enforce that policy?
519 2018-09-13T20:02:22  <MarcoFalke> DrahtBot can close prs that are refactoring that is not covered by tests ;)
520 2018-09-13T20:02:32  <MarcoFalke> Though, that would close almost all refactoring prs
521 2018-09-13T20:02:34  <jamesob> if the author didn't provide a coverage list and the PR is marked refactoring, it's an immediate close
522 2018-09-13T20:03:03  <achow101> MarcoFalke: Is it necessary to get the logs from lincolnloop? We have the logs on at least two other sites as text files
523 2018-09-13T20:03:03  <promag> how can DrathBot know if it's covered or not?
524 2018-09-13T20:03:35  <MarcoFalke> achow101: If they are complete, then I guess not
525 2018-09-13T20:03:47  <MarcoFalke> promag: make cov
526 2018-09-13T20:04:14  <achow101> MarcoFalke: they look complete. they're in the topic
527 2018-09-13T20:05:03  <meshcollider> So make a new repo in bitcoin-core called irc-logs or something and upload them ?
528 2018-09-13T20:05:34  <promag> regarding scantxoutset release notes, should create separate file or append to release-notes.md?
529 2018-09-13T20:05:45  <achow101> promag: use the wiki?
530 2018-09-13T20:05:56  <achow101> or did that get merged in?
531 2018-09-13T20:06:00  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
532 2018-09-13T20:06:03  <MarcoFalke> achow101: They don't have html anchors, so hard to link to them for reference
533 2018-09-13T20:06:11  <MarcoFalke> So I'd prefer them in a botbot-html-format
534 2018-09-13T20:06:27  <MarcoFalke> The wiki is not yet merged in
535 2018-09-13T20:06:33  <meshcollider> Yeah ideally all the logs are easily viewable from a botbot-like site
536 2018-09-13T20:06:54  <promag> achow101: this https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/0.17.0-Release-notes ?
537 2018-09-13T20:07:03  <achow101> yes
538 2018-09-13T20:07:26  <promag> thanks
539 2018-09-13T20:07:30  *** clarkmoody has quit IRC
540 2018-09-13T20:07:41  <provoostenator> It might be easier to just get the logs in SQL format and then load them into a fresh server?
541 2018-09-13T20:08:08  * aj waves
542 2018-09-13T20:08:17  <wumpus> o/ aj
543 2018-09-13T20:08:52  <aj> fwiw, i've been keeping non meeting channel logs at http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/
544 2018-09-13T20:10:00  <provoostenator> aj: if you add anchor links to each timestamp, it makes it easier to link directly to one line of text
545 2018-09-13T20:10:02  <aj> moving the meetbot stuff to bitcoincore.org domain sounds like a good idea, add it to the tokyo todo?
546 2018-09-13T20:11:16  <provoostenator> Then it's just a question what's easier to maintain, aj's solution or a BotBot server.
547 2018-09-13T20:11:23  <wumpus> that'd be awesome
548 2018-09-13T20:11:35  <jnewbery> aj: fantastic! Didn't know about http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/
549 2018-09-13T20:11:54  <achow101> jnewbery: it's in the topic of this channel
550 2018-09-13T20:12:01  <aj> jnewbery: it is pretty horrible, but better than nothing :-/
551 2018-09-13T20:12:07  <achow101> along with http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/
552 2018-09-13T20:13:22  <jnewbery> achow101: oh yeah. Thanks
553 2018-09-13T20:14:08  *** owowo has quit IRC
554 2018-09-13T20:17:49  <aj> provoostenator: http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2018-09-13.html#l-544    might work fwiw
555 2018-09-13T20:18:44  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
556 2018-09-13T20:18:47  <wumpus> yep that works
557 2018-09-13T20:19:43  <wumpus> does take viewing the source to find it, though :)
558 2018-09-13T20:23:27  <aj> oh, i can fix that
559 2018-09-13T20:26:36  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
560 2018-09-13T20:31:32  <aj> oh, no i can't, at least not the documented way :(
561 2018-09-13T20:36:43  <aj> oh well, it includes line numbers visibly now so it should be easy-ish, but not point and click
562 2018-09-13T21:08:48  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
563 2018-09-13T21:11:09  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
564 2018-09-13T21:12:18  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
565 2018-09-13T21:18:36  *** Zenton has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
566 2018-09-13T21:19:46  <gmaxwell> damn, never thought I'd see the day... windows 10 has a networking feature that I wish linux had.
567 2018-09-13T21:20:15  <gmaxwell> Apparently you can set a socket option to make a TCP connection use LEDBAT congestion control, on a per socket basis.
568 2018-09-13T21:23:11  <gmaxwell> but fortunately, MS has ways of making me not feel too bad.. apparently only "approved software" can use the socket option.
569 2018-09-13T21:25:43  *** morcos has quit IRC
570 2018-09-13T21:26:56  <gmaxwell> Thats too bad, it would make for a meaningful improvement in bitcoin node usability for many users if we could use that.
571 2018-09-13T21:29:03  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572 2018-09-13T21:51:33  <TD-Linux> if it's really useful you could do a userspace implementation a la uTP
573 2018-09-13T21:59:02  <gmaxwell> TD-Linux: utility vs sheer mass of OMG RCE VULNERABLE CODE...
574 2018-09-13T21:59:39  <gmaxwell> the utility of it is that peers pulling many old blocks from us utterly slams the network connections of people with bufferbloated links.
575 2018-09-13T21:59:51  <gmaxwell> And short of LEDBAT there isn't really a good fix for it.
576 2018-09-13T22:00:13  <gmaxwell> But I don't know that the problem is severe enough that we'd want to ship a userspace network stack...
577 2018-09-13T22:00:26  <TD-Linux> fair. also those people can prune
578 2018-09-13T22:02:09  <gmaxwell> TD-Linux: they don't need to prune, they can just turn off service old blocks (set the upload limiter to zero)
579 2018-09-13T22:02:15  <gmaxwell> serving*
580 2018-09-13T22:02:22  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
581 2018-09-13T22:02:43  <gmaxwell> But indeed, unfortunately having to have them configure stuff is kinda lame... since only a small portion of people who should do it actually will.
582 2018-09-13T22:03:28  <gmaxwell> the rest will just have a bad time, and turn it off.
583 2018-09-13T22:06:17  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
584 2018-09-13T22:07:30  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
585 2018-09-13T22:08:13  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
586 2018-09-13T22:19:57  *** promag has quit IRC
587 2018-09-13T22:21:25  *** spinza has quit IRC
588 2018-09-13T22:22:54  *** hebasto has quit IRC
589 2018-09-13T22:36:31  *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
590 2018-09-13T22:38:54  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
591 2018-09-13T22:59:53  *** jarthur has quit IRC
592 2018-09-13T23:19:10  <achow101> wumpus: is #12493 ready to be merged? it has several acks
593 2018-09-13T23:19:13  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12493 | [wallet] Reopen CDBEnv after encryption instead of shutting down by achow101 · Pull Request #12493 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
594 2018-09-13T23:22:34  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
595 2018-09-13T23:23:51  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
596 2018-09-13T23:37:20  *** intcat has quit IRC
597 2018-09-13T23:39:02  *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
598 2018-09-13T23:45:27  *** tryphe_ has quit IRC
599 2018-09-13T23:46:01  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
600 2018-09-13T23:47:38  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
601 2018-09-13T23:48:27  *** tryphe_ has quit IRC
602 2018-09-13T23:48:52  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
603 2018-09-13T23:49:57  *** tryphe_ has quit IRC
604 2018-09-13T23:50:29  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev