1 2020-05-17T00:00:04  *** rob01 has quit IRC
  2 2020-05-17T00:00:09  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
  3 2020-05-17T00:00:43  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2020-05-17T00:04:54  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
  5 2020-05-17T00:06:26  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  6 2020-05-17T00:09:36  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2020-05-17T00:13:32  <ariard> #proposedmeetingtopic alternative transports support (#18989)
  8 2020-05-17T00:13:33  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18989 | Towards alternative transports first-class support · Issue #18989 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  9 2020-05-17T00:16:20  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 10 2020-05-17T00:17:16  *** blackjid has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2020-05-17T00:20:55  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 12 2020-05-17T00:20:56  *** mol has quit IRC
 13 2020-05-17T00:21:17  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2020-05-17T00:31:47  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2020-05-17T00:36:15  *** promag has quit IRC
 16 2020-05-17T00:46:46  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2020-05-17T00:51:45  *** promag has quit IRC
 18 2020-05-17T00:56:02  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
 19 2020-05-17T00:56:25  *** proofofk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2020-05-17T00:57:14  *** Emcy has quit IRC
 21 2020-05-17T01:00:48  *** jonatack_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2020-05-17T01:03:57  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2020-05-17T01:04:25  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 24 2020-05-17T01:04:47  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 25 2020-05-17T01:09:22  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 26 2020-05-17T01:09:53  *** tryphe has quit IRC
 27 2020-05-17T01:13:18  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2020-05-17T01:18:13  *** geeker has quit IRC
 29 2020-05-17T01:24:11  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 30 2020-05-17T01:24:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] naumenkogs opened pull request #18991: Cache responses to GETADDR to prevent topology leaks (master...2020-05-addr-response-caching) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18991
 31 2020-05-17T01:24:17  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 32 2020-05-17T01:32:40  *** surja795 has quit IRC
 33 2020-05-17T01:38:01  *** mrostecki is now known as mrostecki[m]
 34 2020-05-17T01:45:04  *** s3r6iu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 35 2020-05-17T02:03:14  *** s3r6iu has quit IRC
 36 2020-05-17T02:04:38  *** dviola has quit IRC
 37 2020-05-17T02:05:23  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
 38 2020-05-17T02:22:21  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2020-05-17T02:23:33  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 40 2020-05-17T02:24:03  *** dviola has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2020-05-17T02:24:46  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2020-05-17T02:27:10  *** promag has quit IRC
 43 2020-05-17T02:31:47  *** BlueMatt has quit IRC
 44 2020-05-17T02:33:26  *** surja795 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2020-05-17T02:37:17  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 46 2020-05-17T02:39:56  *** proofofk_ has quit IRC
 47 2020-05-17T02:41:36  *** geeker has quit IRC
 48 2020-05-17T02:43:07  *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2020-05-17T02:45:34  *** dviola has quit IRC
 50 2020-05-17T02:45:41  *** ubuntu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2020-05-17T02:45:47  *** ubuntu has quit IRC
 52 2020-05-17T02:46:23  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 53 2020-05-17T02:46:46  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2020-05-17T02:48:28  *** dviola has quit IRC
 55 2020-05-17T03:00:02  *** blackjid has quit IRC
 56 2020-05-17T03:09:57  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 57 2020-05-17T03:09:58  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] 10xcryptodev opened pull request #18992: qt: add sign and verify message support to AddressBookPage (master...202005-sign-message-ui) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18992
 58 2020-05-17T03:09:59  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 59 2020-05-17T03:19:29  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2020-05-17T03:19:46  *** chaosagent has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2020-05-17T03:31:40  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
 62 2020-05-17T03:31:44  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2020-05-17T03:36:10  *** promag has quit IRC
 64 2020-05-17T03:36:19  *** Relis has quit IRC
 65 2020-05-17T03:40:53  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2020-05-17T03:44:24  *** Relis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 67 2020-05-17T03:44:59  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 68 2020-05-17T03:52:03  *** surja795 has quit IRC
 69 2020-05-17T03:53:33  *** surja795 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2020-05-17T04:00:39  *** Relis has quit IRC
 71 2020-05-17T04:06:53  *** surja795 has quit IRC
 72 2020-05-17T04:16:29  *** sipa has quit IRC
 73 2020-05-17T04:20:02  *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 74 2020-05-17T04:23:03  *** vasild has quit IRC
 75 2020-05-17T04:23:04  *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
 76 2020-05-17T04:32:05  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2020-05-17T04:34:45  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
 78 2020-05-17T04:35:02  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 79 2020-05-17T04:58:37  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2020-05-17T04:58:37  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] 10xcryptodev opened pull request #18993: qt: increase console command max lenght (master...202005-increase-console-command) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18993
 81 2020-05-17T04:58:38  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 82 2020-05-17T05:04:21  *** tryphe_ is now known as tryphe
 83 2020-05-17T05:06:55  <tryphe> does a tACK imply a concept ack? or it is simply a confirmation that the commit works, regardless of conceptual opinion (suppose you agree with the concept but don't know whether  to agree with the approach taken or not)?
 84 2020-05-17T05:07:54  <yevaud> my reading is that you wouldn't test something you don't conceptually agree with.
 85 2020-05-17T05:08:57  <tryphe> makes sense
 86 2020-05-17T05:09:20  <yevaud> that may not be correct, but I'm not sure how to understand it otherwise, as you've pointed out.
 87 2020-05-17T05:11:10  *** Highway62 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2020-05-17T05:11:50  *** Highway62 has quit IRC
 89 2020-05-17T05:11:56  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
 90 2020-05-17T05:12:57  <tryphe> my feeling was that maybe you'd test it just to test it because it's a good concept, without being able to weigh the tradeoffs of what's possible with another implementation of the same concept
 91 2020-05-17T05:13:40  <tryphe> and maybe you'd concept ack it if you had gone through implementations of that concept in your head
 92 2020-05-17T05:14:04  <tryphe> (or maybe that would be something different like implementation ack)
 93 2020-05-17T05:15:54  <tryphe> and maybe code review is more of an implementation ack
 94 2020-05-17T05:34:01  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2020-05-17T05:37:01  *** mol has quit IRC
 96 2020-05-17T05:54:33  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2020-05-17T05:54:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #18994: tests: Add fuzzing harnesses for functions in script/ (master...fuzzers-script-slash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18994
 98 2020-05-17T05:54:34  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2020-05-17T06:00:02  *** chaosagent has quit IRC
100 2020-05-17T06:05:41  <sipa> tryphe: sometimes people comment "code review ack" to be specific about the fact that the code looks good, but they don't have much of an opinion on the concept
101 2020-05-17T06:07:31  *** ctrlbreak_MAD has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102 2020-05-17T06:07:52  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2020-05-17T06:10:57  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
104 2020-05-17T06:10:57  *** ctrlbreak has quit IRC
105 2020-05-17T06:18:54  *** afk11` has quit IRC
106 2020-05-17T06:19:40  *** afk11` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2020-05-17T06:22:06  *** ramsey1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2020-05-17T06:28:13  *** manantial has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2020-05-17T06:29:52  *** dfmb_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2020-05-17T06:29:57  *** dfmb__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
111 2020-05-17T06:30:35  *** dfmb__ has quit IRC
112 2020-05-17T06:30:35  *** dfmb_ has quit IRC
113 2020-05-17T06:36:08  <tryphe> sipa, ahh, that makes sense then, i guess i had assumed those code review acks were concept acks in a sense, but indeed it's nice that code review can complete without putting concept ack pressure on the reviewers
114 2020-05-17T06:55:33  <tryphe> on another note: shouldn't there be a github tag called "needs testing", or are testers in high supply and usually not necessary??
115 2020-05-17T06:55:51  <tryphe> err, multiple question marks not intended, sorry
116 2020-05-17T06:56:26  *** dfmb_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2020-05-17T06:57:17  <tryphe> usually not necessary/usually not necessary enough to need a tag*
118 2020-05-17T06:58:55  <tryphe> or is that what "review club" is?
119 2020-05-17T07:04:40  *** dfmbbtc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2020-05-17T07:06:10  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
121 2020-05-17T07:07:27  *** dfmb_ has quit IRC
122 2020-05-17T07:19:07  *** dfmb_btc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
123 2020-05-17T07:22:50  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
124 2020-05-17T07:22:56  *** dfmbbtc has quit IRC
125 2020-05-17T07:26:42  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2020-05-17T07:35:05  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
127 2020-05-17T07:35:50  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2020-05-17T07:36:40  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
129 2020-05-17T07:40:59  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
130 2020-05-17T07:41:20  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2020-05-17T07:42:25  *** jonatack_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2020-05-17T07:42:41  *** tmoc has quit IRC
133 2020-05-17T07:43:03  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
134 2020-05-17T07:43:13  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2020-05-17T08:17:05  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2020-05-17T08:18:34  *** mol_ has quit IRC
137 2020-05-17T08:21:45  *** promag has quit IRC
138 2020-05-17T08:31:05  *** geeker has quit IRC
139 2020-05-17T08:44:30  *** per has quit IRC
140 2020-05-17T08:44:44  *** per has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2020-05-17T08:50:46  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2020-05-17T08:51:13  *** surja795 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2020-05-17T08:52:10  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2020-05-17T08:55:35  *** surja795 has quit IRC
145 2020-05-17T08:56:34  *** geeker has quit IRC
146 2020-05-17T08:58:07  *** emilengler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2020-05-17T09:00:02  *** ramsey1 has quit IRC
148 2020-05-17T09:03:46  *** shigeya has quit IRC
149 2020-05-17T09:04:05  *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2020-05-17T09:07:56  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
151 2020-05-17T09:10:49  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
152 2020-05-17T09:12:16  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2020-05-17T09:20:45  *** Alphi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
154 2020-05-17T09:37:03  *** emilengler has quit IRC
155 2020-05-17T09:47:56  *** emilengler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2020-05-17T10:01:30  <jonatack> tryphe: i think the review club is to help contributors learn about the review process and participate in it
157 2020-05-17T10:03:00  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2020-05-17T10:03:16  <jonatack> as for the need for a testing label: ACKs are normally followed by a description of how the reviewer did the review, including testing (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review)
159 2020-05-17T10:05:16  <jonatack> (though that somewhat newer guideline isn't necessarily followed). I don't think we have an oversupply of testing and reviewing.
160 2020-05-17T10:05:24  *** Jaycee66Ryan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2020-05-17T10:10:35  *** Jaycee66Ryan has quit IRC
162 2020-05-17T10:13:15  <jonatack> sipa: good point, i added your code review ack description to https://jonatack.github.io/articles/how-to-review-pull-requests-in-bitcoin-core#peer-review
163 2020-05-17T10:15:47  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
164 2020-05-17T10:21:04  *** jonatack has quit IRC
165 2020-05-17T10:21:04  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2020-05-17T10:41:20  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2020-05-17T11:11:37  <meshcollider> In my opinion, code review ACK is just the more descriptive version of utACK, and that any form of ACK (including tACK) is implicitly a concept ACK unless stated otherwise
168 2020-05-17T11:17:16  *** belcher has quit IRC
169 2020-05-17T11:19:23  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
170 2020-05-17T11:19:33  *** promag_ has quit IRC
171 2020-05-17T11:21:17  *** rh0nj has quit IRC
172 2020-05-17T11:22:07  *** rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
173 2020-05-17T11:24:58  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
174 2020-05-17T11:25:57  *** promag has quit IRC
175 2020-05-17T11:26:33  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2020-05-17T11:33:53  <jonatack> meshcollider: this is how i have been using it as well. the more specific version had not occurred to me, but it strikes me as more useful. if i'm not the only one who read it this way then it may be useful to disambiguate it.
177 2020-05-17T11:36:38  *** emilengler has quit IRC
178 2020-05-17T11:43:11  *** surja795 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
179 2020-05-17T12:00:02  *** Alphi has quit IRC
180 2020-05-17T12:14:30  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
181 2020-05-17T12:21:14  *** smibarber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182 2020-05-17T12:21:40  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
183 2020-05-17T12:21:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 5 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f8123d483caa...dc5333d31f28
184 2020-05-17T12:21:41  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c0bbf81 practicalswift: tests: Fill fuzzing coverage gaps for functions in primitives/block.h
185 2020-05-17T12:21:42  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b74f3d6 practicalswift: tests: Fill fuzzing coverage gaps for functions in consensus/validation.h
186 2020-05-17T12:21:42  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fb559c1 practicalswift: tests: Fill fuzzing coverage gaps for functions in util/translation.h
187 2020-05-17T12:21:52  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
188 2020-05-17T12:22:10  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
189 2020-05-17T12:22:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18938: tests: Fill fuzzing coverage gaps for functions in consensus/validation.h, primitives/block.h and util/translation.h (master...fuzzers-misc-5) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18938
190 2020-05-17T12:22:11  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
191 2020-05-17T12:25:42  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192 2020-05-17T12:28:01  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2020-05-17T12:29:54  *** promag_ has quit IRC
194 2020-05-17T12:49:19  *** Technoprenerd has quit IRC
195 2020-05-17T12:58:54  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
196 2020-05-17T13:05:24  <michaelfolkson> jonatack: This isn't the guidance in the CONTRIBUTING doc. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review
197 2020-05-17T13:06:07  <michaelfolkson> I thought the whole motivation for the change in wording last year was to make it more standardized and less convoluted.
198 2020-05-17T13:07:44  <jonatack> michaelfolkson: this is what i meant above with "(though that somewhat newer guideline isn't necessarily followed)"
199 2020-05-17T13:08:28  <michaelfolkson> Well they should be right? What is the point of guidelines if no one follows them?
200 2020-05-17T13:08:55  <jonatack> michaelfolkson: we're discussing what is seen in practice... "code review ack" is used frequently
201 2020-05-17T13:09:15  <michaelfolkson> If we want to get BitcoinACKs back up and other tools/analytics we need people to understand the guidelines and follow those guidelines
202 2020-05-17T13:09:33  <jonatack> michaelfolkson: this is open source...
203 2020-05-17T13:09:47  <michaelfolkson> Ok let's ditch the guidelines then
204 2020-05-17T13:10:53  <michaelfolkson> I don't think guidance docs like the one you put together should be encouraging things that aren't in the guidelines
205 2020-05-17T13:13:43  <jonatack> i update it often to reflect actual practice, it's not intended to be a copy of contributing.md. you are free to write your own document. this is open source.
206 2020-05-17T13:13:44  <michaelfolkson> That makes things really confusing if two different docs tell you to do two different things
207 2020-05-17T13:15:10  <michaelfolkson> Perhaps ditch the style guidelines too if this is open source. I don't mean to be flippant but "this is open source so feel free not to follow guidelines" seems bizarre to me
208 2020-05-17T13:18:24  <jonatack> observing and discussing actual practice is different, in my view, from proposing to ditch guidelines, which can still be helpful
209 2020-05-17T13:18:54  <jonatack> i'm not really interested in debating that
210 2020-05-17T13:21:00  <michaelfolkson> As long you appreciate downsides. You can't one day talk about why BitcoinACKs doesn't effectively work and the next day encourage flexibility around the review wordings people use
211 2020-05-17T13:21:07  *** thomasb06 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212 2020-05-17T13:21:49  <michaelfolkson> I don't know. I don't want to discuss it either but I am more confused after this conversation than I was before it started. Let's leave it
213 2020-05-17T13:22:19  *** Relis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
214 2020-05-17T13:22:23  *** sipa has quit IRC
215 2020-05-17T13:23:27  <jonatack> i'm doing neither of those things, i think? bitcoinacks could be updated occasionally when practices evolve. i'm not advocating about current practices, simply looking to understand them
216 2020-05-17T13:29:36  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2020-05-17T13:33:43  *** Relis has quit IRC
218 2020-05-17T14:05:30  *** owowo has quit IRC
219 2020-05-17T14:08:02  *** Relis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
220 2020-05-17T14:10:08  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
221 2020-05-17T14:10:08  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222 2020-05-17T14:16:19  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2020-05-17T14:21:55  *** bitdex has quit IRC
224 2020-05-17T14:22:27  *** bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
225 2020-05-17T14:26:37  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2020-05-17T14:39:37  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
227 2020-05-17T14:41:33  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2020-05-17T14:41:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18996: net: Remove un-actionable TODO (master...2005-netNoTodo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18996
229 2020-05-17T14:41:36  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
230 2020-05-17T14:44:48  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2020-05-17T14:47:26  *** mol has quit IRC
232 2020-05-17T14:50:09  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2020-05-17T14:56:43  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
234 2020-05-17T14:59:20  *** geeker has quit IRC
235 2020-05-17T14:59:51  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2020-05-17T14:59:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18997: gui: Remove un-actionable TODO (master...2005-guiNoTodo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18997
237 2020-05-17T15:00:00  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2020-05-17T15:00:01  *** smibarber has quit IRC
239 2020-05-17T15:02:34  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
240 2020-05-17T15:03:07  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2020-05-17T15:07:30  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
242 2020-05-17T15:07:42  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
243 2020-05-17T15:09:21  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
244 2020-05-17T15:12:32  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
245 2020-05-17T15:13:05  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
246 2020-05-17T15:13:54  *** geeker has quit IRC
247 2020-05-17T15:14:19  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
248 2020-05-17T15:21:58  *** mattl1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
249 2020-05-17T15:35:13  *** emilengler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
250 2020-05-17T16:00:58  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
251 2020-05-17T16:05:38  *** geeker has quit IRC
252 2020-05-17T16:13:15  *** Relis has quit IRC
253 2020-05-17T16:20:04  *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
254 2020-05-17T16:21:36  *** Highway62 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
255 2020-05-17T16:21:47  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
256 2020-05-17T16:21:47  *** Highway62 is now known as Highway61
257 2020-05-17T16:23:23  *** vasild has quit IRC
258 2020-05-17T16:23:24  *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
259 2020-05-17T16:26:17  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
260 2020-05-17T16:27:08  *** Relis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
261 2020-05-17T16:38:48  <tryphe> jonatack, meshcollider, thanks!
262 2020-05-17T16:43:43  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
263 2020-05-17T16:43:43  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18999: 2005 log rpc password (master...2005-logRpcPassword) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18999
264 2020-05-17T16:43:45  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2020-05-17T16:45:16  <tryphe> another question about review though. is there a general need for tested ACKs other than from reviewers? i guess what i mean is, is testing and reviewing seen as more mutually exclusive, where everyone testing a PR is seen beneficial, beyond reviewer testing?
266 2020-05-17T16:46:56  <michaelfolkson> On your previous question tryphe I would say follow the guidelines as much as possible https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review
267 2020-05-17T16:46:58  <instagibbs> tryphe, code reviewing and testing are two separate things generally
268 2020-05-17T16:47:43  <instagibbs> for instance some PRs I just don't have time/interest/knowledge to review the code well, but I know how to test how users are expected to use it, try to trip it up, etc. Both are valuable.
269 2020-05-17T16:48:07  <sipa> i'd say that the need for manual testing goes down the more testable (through unit or functional or fuzz tests) it is
270 2020-05-17T16:48:23  <sipa> and the latter is certainly preferable
271 2020-05-17T16:49:13  <sipa> so the distinction between "ack, tested" and "ack, didn't test anything myself but the included tests look sufficient"
272 2020-05-17T16:49:18  <sipa> is not always so big
273 2020-05-17T16:49:21  <tryphe> michaelfolkson, yep, i took a look, but i wasn't sure if tACKS were inherently concept ACKs or not, or if both should be done
274 2020-05-17T16:50:23  <tryphe> i guess maybe that should be added? it seems like newer people might get thrown off by that
275 2020-05-17T16:50:41  <michaelfolkson> tryphe: I think generally if you are taking the time to review the code you are a Concept ACK or you think the Concept ACK has consensus. Otherwise why review the code?
276 2020-05-17T16:51:04  <michaelfolkson> tryphe: But you can Concept NACK and ACK a commit in the same comment if you are in that situation
277 2020-05-17T16:51:18  <sipa> indeed
278 2020-05-17T16:51:28  <sipa> but you may be indifferent about the concept
279 2020-05-17T16:51:43  <tryphe> michaelfolkson, suppose you are feeling neutral about the concept, reviewed the code, but want to leave the concept ack to other people to decide
280 2020-05-17T16:51:48  <tryphe> yeah what sipa said
281 2020-05-17T16:52:06  <sipa> "Code review ACK <commitid>, unsure about the concept"
282 2020-05-17T16:52:37  <sipa> You're always welcome to elaborate more on your opinion.
283 2020-05-17T16:53:00  <michaelfolkson> The guideline is ACK <commitid> rather than Code review ACK <commitid>
284 2020-05-17T16:53:30  <michaelfolkson> Obviously you can write whatever you want after ACK <commitid> to explain in greater detail exactly what you have reviewed
285 2020-05-17T16:53:59  <michaelfolkson> That's the current guideline (as I can make out)
286 2020-05-17T16:55:14  <tryphe> that makes sense, thanks
287 2020-05-17T16:55:20  <sipa> for example other useful things to add are "verified move only" if the PR includes move-only commits, and things like "thought hard about how the change X could break Y but didn't find any"
288 2020-05-17T16:56:16  <tryphe> i had found myself going through a bunch of historical commits to try and find a theme but it seems like everyone has their own preference of style, i think that might deter newer folks from jumping right in, unsure about what they've seen vs. what they interpret the guidelines as
289 2020-05-17T16:56:34  <tryphe> i mean, just as an observation
290 2020-05-17T16:57:21  <sipa> yeah, that's certainly possible
291 2020-05-17T16:57:25  <michaelfolkson> Maybe. I am happy to be one of those annoying people who badger people to follow the guidelines ;)
292 2020-05-17T16:57:46  <michaelfolkson> We certainly need those richer comments that sipa lays out too. Hopefully we can get best of both worlds
293 2020-05-17T16:57:56  <tryphe> not nitpicking the guidelines or anything, i just wish it was easier to parse i guess, but can't really suggest any improvments
294 2020-05-17T16:58:24  <jonatack> i think this was the last time recently where i reviewed the code before the concept ack https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18962#issuecomment-627635800
295 2020-05-17T16:58:25  <michaelfolkson> It is good feedback. I think the guidelines are good. Just need to try to get people to follow them I think
296 2020-05-17T16:59:13  <jonatack> when in doubt adding context doesn't hurt; the shortcuts seem popular because they are just handy
297 2020-05-17T17:01:00  <tryphe> i see, that makes sense
298 2020-05-17T17:01:14  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
299 2020-05-17T17:01:43  <tryphe> i guess my concern is, to the casual observer or someone who might be a potential tester, seeing the shortcut acks might throw them through a loop about the whole process
300 2020-05-17T17:02:22  <tryphe> even if they had read the guidelines after, i mean
301 2020-05-17T17:04:19  <sipa> i think from a new contributor it's even more advisable to be verbose in review comments
302 2020-05-17T17:04:27  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
303 2020-05-17T17:10:06  <michaelfolkson> Makes sense. A long term contributor ACKing a commit without any comment has value. But if a new contributor does the same it is unclear what exactly they have reviewed and if they have truly understood the change
304 2020-05-17T17:10:42  <sipa> exactly
305 2020-05-17T17:10:45  <tryphe> ahh yeah
306 2020-05-17T17:11:32  <tryphe> as someone who has looked over a lot of PRs but never commented much, i always feel like verbose conversation was sort of unwelcome and would clog up the comment feed with chatter instead of acks, but i guess that's completely wrong
307 2020-05-17T17:13:14  <sipa> i think the most disrupting thing to a PR is getting a multitude of low level/nits/code style comments, while it's very unclear if a PR is desirable as a concept
308 2020-05-17T17:14:09  <michaelfolkson> Personally I have been quite conservative on when I comment. John Newbery has encouraged me to comment more on PRs having participated in a lot of PR review clubs.
309 2020-05-17T17:14:55  <michaelfolkson> It is a balance though I think. Often I am trying to understand the conceptual change at a time when it clearly already has consensus on the Concept ACK and the discussion has moved onto the code review
310 2020-05-17T17:15:36  <michaelfolkson> Definitely do a lot of PR review clubs tryphe and it will start to become clearer where you can add value
311 2020-05-17T17:16:23  *** mrostecki has quit IRC
312 2020-05-17T17:16:31  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
313 2020-05-17T17:17:29  <tryphe> thanks. i think i might do that!
314 2020-05-17T17:25:33  <tryphe> thanks. i think i might do that!
315 2020-05-17T17:25:36  <tryphe> oops
316 2020-05-17T17:25:39  <tryphe> when getting into bitcoin PR review i feel like there's this -almost- unscalable mountain in front of you; semi-scalable in terms of "things that i can actually review without much historical bitcoin knowlegde" (NATPMP for example, that was easy, but almost straightforward enough that it requires no comments), but also unscalable parts in terms of other PRs where the motivation was so ingenius that trying to review it almost seems like a
317 2020-05-17T17:25:39  <tryphe> fallacy (maybe i understand the motivation conceptually but trying to constructively add to conversation is not possible)
318 2020-05-17T17:26:27  <tryphe> i guess the almost unscable part becomes scalable over time with much more PRs reviewed though, but to me that's the biggest detterent to newcomers
319 2020-05-17T17:26:58  <tryphe> hard to constructively comment on low hanging fruit (because it's easy), but overwhelmed when trying to push a boulder, so to speak
320 2020-05-17T17:28:31  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
321 2020-05-17T17:30:53  <tryphe> i guess it seems like there's a lack of middle ground, just a huge disparity between simple changes and huge ones. observationally speaking, anyways.
322 2020-05-17T17:30:55  <jonatack> re-updated today's update with the suggestions from sipa: https://github.com/jonatack/jonatack.github.io/commit/e050fdd
323 2020-05-17T17:32:15  <michaelfolkson> Yeah I think that is fair tryphe. It is not easy. But ACKing the more basic PRs and attending the PR review club to understand the more complex ones is the way to go
324 2020-05-17T17:33:59  <tryphe> michaelfolkson, thanks for that, i'll definitely give it a go. is the review club new, btw? it seems like it wasn't around even a few years ago, or maybe i'm just ignorant
325 2020-05-17T17:34:49  <sipa> tryphe: it just celebrated its 1 year anniversary
326 2020-05-17T17:34:54  <jonatack> tryphe: jnewbery launched it began a year ago. it's sort of like an online version of the chaincode labs seminars.
327 2020-05-17T17:35:05  <tryphe> that's pretty cool
328 2020-05-17T17:35:25  <tryphe> there's such a large following now it almost seems like it existed longer
329 2020-05-17T17:35:34  <michaelfolkson> jonatack: Looks good apart from code review ACK. As I said before the guideline is ACK <commitid> and then comment e.g. Reviewed the code.
330 2020-05-17T17:36:05  <michaelfolkson> We have no hope of people following guidelines if guidelines aren't clear and inconsistent between documents
331 2020-05-17T17:36:09  <tryphe> existed/had to exist*
332 2020-05-17T17:36:45  <jonatack> michaelfolkson: thanks for reviewing, will look at it tomorrow with fresh eyes
333 2020-05-17T17:37:02  <michaelfolkson> At this point your doc is the most useful doc out there. Important to get it right in my view
334 2020-05-17T17:39:54  <jonatack> 👍
335 2020-05-17T17:50:23  *** jb55 has quit IRC
336 2020-05-17T17:53:50  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
337 2020-05-17T17:59:20  <tryphe> what do you guys think of the PR-comment reaction emojis on github? is it generally useless to thumbs up the first message in a conversation, but okay to thumbs up a comment that you agree with but don't care to comment on?
338 2020-05-17T17:59:41  <tryphe> or is it better to just reply?
339 2020-05-17T18:00:02  *** mattl1 has quit IRC
340 2020-05-17T18:00:32  <tryphe> i was just curious if anyone used the emojis as a metric or if it's just purely visual in terms of review
341 2020-05-17T18:02:44  <tryphe> ie. maybe sometimes emojis would be preferred, or maybe it's just seen as a dumb idea
342 2020-05-17T18:05:14  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
343 2020-05-17T18:06:12  <tryphe> in some ways i think it's hard to parse if someone gave an edited comment a thumbs up, because it's hard to know which version of the comment they approved of, but otoh replying to a full copy of a message every time seems spammy
344 2020-05-17T18:08:28  <jonatack> tryphe: on github projects with a small number of collaborators i think they are fun; on more widely-watched ones like bitcoin core i tend to not use them to avoid it turning into a social media or slack feed. using an emoji inside a comment, sure. worked more ideas into the doc from all three of you, thanks!
345 2020-05-17T18:09:59  <tryphe> lol, good point :)
346 2020-05-17T18:10:27  *** tmoc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
347 2020-05-17T18:10:49  <gleb> tryphe: I like emojis and use them for different purposes. But at the same time I don't assume that everybody looks at them. So if I really need to say that I agree, I'd rather make an explicit message.
348 2020-05-17T18:10:59  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
349 2020-05-17T18:11:38  <michaelfolkson> tryphe: Emojis definitely aren't used as a formal metric. I find them useful to see whether people are enthusiastic or not about a comment without them needing to add unnecessary comments
350 2020-05-17T18:12:35  <michaelfolkson> tryphe: Agree with gleb. If you have something important to say it needs a comment. If you don't have much to say but like/dislike a comment some people (e.g. gleb and me) take notice ;)
351 2020-05-17T18:13:01  <jonatack> hm, i do use the heart emoji to say thanks to people sometimes for reviewing
352 2020-05-17T18:14:01  <tryphe> ahh, good point. yeah i think in some sense emojis are somewhat redundant other than a simple "i agree but no comment needed"
353 2020-05-17T18:14:21  <michaelfolkson> I only realized recently when Marco commented that too many unnecessary comments is a problem. Makes reviewers life more difficult because GitHub starts hiding important review comments
354 2020-05-17T18:15:13  <michaelfolkson> So that makes emojis useful. You don't want lots of "Yes I agree with the above comment" statements
355 2020-05-17T18:15:52  <sipa> Unfortunately, emoji are also mostly anonymous.
356 2020-05-17T18:16:12  <michaelfolkson> No you can hover over it and see who posted the emoji?
357 2020-05-17T18:16:23  <sipa> sure
358 2020-05-17T18:16:26  *** bitdex has quit IRC
359 2020-05-17T18:16:28  <sipa> that's why i say mostly
360 2020-05-17T18:16:43  <sipa> but it's not clear at a first glance who liked/agreed/disliked
361 2020-05-17T18:17:02  <sipa> and when a comment gets brigaded by random people because someone linked it on social media, it becomes entirely worthless
362 2020-05-17T18:17:17  *** bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
363 2020-05-17T18:18:15  <michaelfolkson> Yup. Definitely flawed but generally maintains some limited value in most cases
364 2020-05-17T18:18:23  <tryphe> yeah, after a certain threshold it just becomes "alice, bob, jane, and X more reacted"
365 2020-05-17T18:20:06  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
366 2020-05-17T18:22:01  *** Bjarki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
367 2020-05-17T18:22:17  <tryphe> i think in the future if you had a historical archive of PRs the "X more reacted" might pollute things a little bit, because you don't get to see all participants
368 2020-05-17T18:22:40  <tryphe> and maybe some reviewers would get washed out by mass emoji-ers
369 2020-05-17T18:24:33  *** geeker has quit IRC
370 2020-05-17T18:24:36  *** Talkless has quit IRC
371 2020-05-17T18:40:03  *** surja795 has quit IRC
372 2020-05-17T18:40:15  *** sipa has quit IRC
373 2020-05-17T18:51:00  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
374 2020-05-17T18:52:44  *** Henry151_ is now known as Henry151
375 2020-05-17T18:56:05  *** surja795 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
376 2020-05-17T19:02:43  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
377 2020-05-17T19:06:42  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
378 2020-05-17T19:11:00  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
379 2020-05-17T19:30:10  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
380 2020-05-17T19:30:44  *** vasild has quit IRC
381 2020-05-17T19:45:00  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382 2020-05-17T19:58:10  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
383 2020-05-17T20:03:09  *** thomasb06 has left #bitcoin-core-dev
384 2020-05-17T20:05:56  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
385 2020-05-17T20:14:23  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
386 2020-05-17T20:21:05  *** Emcy has quit IRC
387 2020-05-17T20:22:39  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
388 2020-05-17T20:27:07  *** geeker has quit IRC
389 2020-05-17T20:39:06  *** emilengler has quit IRC
390 2020-05-17T20:43:54  *** promag_ has quit IRC
391 2020-05-17T20:50:12  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
392 2020-05-17T20:59:01  *** roconnor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
393 2020-05-17T21:00:02  *** Bjarki has quit IRC
394 2020-05-17T21:19:52  *** IOMonster1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
395 2020-05-17T21:31:06  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
396 2020-05-17T21:35:36  *** manantial has quit IRC
397 2020-05-17T21:39:47  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
398 2020-05-17T21:39:48  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] 10xcryptodev opened pull request #19001: qt: bugfix unsupported QLocale languages (master...202005-bugfix-qlocale) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19001
399 2020-05-17T21:39:49  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
400 2020-05-17T21:45:06  *** geeker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
401 2020-05-17T21:49:40  *** geeker has quit IRC
402 2020-05-17T21:50:06  *** inoor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
403 2020-05-17T21:50:27  *** inoor has left #bitcoin-core-dev
404 2020-05-17T21:56:36  *** dfmb_btc has quit IRC
405 2020-05-17T22:09:11  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
406 2020-05-17T22:11:35  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
407 2020-05-17T22:17:41  *** promag_ has quit IRC
408 2020-05-17T22:19:48  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
409 2020-05-17T22:22:14  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
410 2020-05-17T22:26:53  *** promag_ has quit IRC
411 2020-05-17T22:31:51  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
412 2020-05-17T22:31:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #18977: [DONTMERGE] Test ranked_index (master...202005_try_ranked) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18977
413 2020-05-17T22:31:53  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
414 2020-05-17T22:34:07  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
415 2020-05-17T22:39:44  *** dfmb_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
416 2020-05-17T23:01:52  *** go121212 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
417 2020-05-17T23:02:27  *** dfmb_ has quit IRC
418 2020-05-17T23:04:53  *** go11111111111 has quit IRC
419 2020-05-17T23:06:35  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
420 2020-05-17T23:13:44  <shesek> why does `gettransaction` only list the fee for "send" transactions? is doing this for incoming transactions problematic for some reason, or just not implemented yet?
421 2020-05-17T23:15:08  <sipa> yes, your wallet does not know the input value of non-wallet tx inputs
422 2020-05-17T23:16:31  <shesek> I meant specifically for `gettransaction`, which is for wallet transactions only
423 2020-05-17T23:16:44  <sipa> yes, but the inputs of a transaction that pays you are not yours
424 2020-05-17T23:16:46  <shesek> bitcoin-qt does seem to somehow get it
425 2020-05-17T23:16:51  <sipa> so your wallet does not know about them
426 2020-05-17T23:17:54  <shesek> it does know them at validation time though, couldn't this get persisted alongside the other wallet tx information?
427 2020-05-17T23:18:02  <sipa> it could :)
428 2020-05-17T23:18:21  <sipa> but conceptually it doesn't really make sense; gettransaction shows the effect of a tx on your wallet
429 2020-05-17T23:18:25  <sipa> you're not the one paying the fee
430 2020-05-17T23:19:23  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
431 2020-05-17T23:19:24  <sipa> but sure, it could be persisted
432 2020-05-17T23:19:52  <shesek> its useful for incoming payments to know how likely they are to get confirmed. its something that a wallet gui should probably be displaying
433 2020-05-17T23:20:00  <sipa> yeah, that makes sense
434 2020-05-17T23:20:31  <shesek> does bitcoin-qt not show the fee of confirmed incoming transactions (ie where the spent prevouts are no longer in the utxo set)?
435 2020-05-17T23:20:55  <shesek> I haven't used the gui in ages >_<
436 2020-05-17T23:22:24  <shesek> how about including the "fee" in the `{get,list}transaction` rpcs for unconfirmed transactions only? the fee is really only useful for them, and it could be deducted by a pruning node
437 2020-05-17T23:27:06  <sipa> i think it's cleaner to persist the fee in the wallet
438 2020-05-17T23:27:15  <sipa> otherwise the wallet needs access to the utxo set
439 2020-05-17T23:27:48  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
440 2020-05-17T23:28:17  <shesek> how does this work for outgoing transactions? persisted in the wallet?
441 2020-05-17T23:29:03  *** bitdex has quit IRC
442 2020-05-17T23:30:00  *** bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
443 2020-05-17T23:33:12  <sipa> for outgoing transactions (at least when they're not coinjoins), you have the inputs anyway
444 2020-05-17T23:35:41  <shesek> ah, so it wouldn't report a fee if any of the inputs are not from the wallet? this should probably get documented
445 2020-05-17T23:36:24  <shesek> maybe something like "This is negative and only available for the 'send' category of transactions when all inputs are owned by the wallet."
446 2020-05-17T23:42:41  <sipa> if it's persisted in the wallet it would work for every transaction
447 2020-05-17T23:47:05  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
448 2020-05-17T23:56:27  <shesek> well, sign me up as someone eagerly waiting for this :)
449 2020-05-17T23:57:19  <sipa> the best way to make it happen is to implement it :)
450 2020-05-17T23:57:30  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
451 2020-05-17T23:57:31  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
452 2020-05-17T23:58:04  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev