19:00:07 <wumpus> #startmeeting
19:00:07 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 14 19:00:07 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:07 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:10 <sipa> present
19:00:20 <instagibbs> hi
19:00:20 <gmaxwell> sipa: you're late
19:00:22 <jonasschnelli> Hy
19:00:30 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101
19:00:52 <cfields_> hi
19:01:00 <sipa> short topic: congrats for 0.15.0!
19:01:08 <Chris_Stewart_5> yay!
19:01:14 <cfields_> woohoo
19:01:21 <wumpus> congrats and thanks everyone
19:01:26 <instagibbs> \o/
19:01:26 <jonasschnelli> !
19:01:37 <harrymm> :)
19:01:51 <wumpus> #topic high priority for review
19:01:55 <instagibbs> beatings will continue until 0.15.1 is out the door
19:02:17 <wumpus> we managed to merge quite a lot during the coredev meet, so there's some place for new things in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
19:03:05 <wumpus> so any suggestions?
19:03:14 <achow101> hi
19:03:52 * BlueMatt is keeping hi
19:03:53 <BlueMatt> s
19:03:57 * sipa also
19:04:07 <BlueMatt> sipa: you dont have one
19:04:17 <wumpus> anything for 0.15.1 maybe?
19:04:26 <sipa> #11167 then
19:04:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11167 | Full BIP173 (Bech32) support by sipa · Pull Request #11167 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:04:39 <instagibbs> #11089
19:04:41 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11089 | Enable various p2sh-p2wpkh functionality by luke-jr · Pull Request #11089 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:04:52 <wumpus> added 11167
19:04:55 <BlueMatt> where are we on 0.15.1?
19:05:16 <cfields_> i have a pretty long stream of stuff to prep for libevent, but i don't want to burn everyone out by nagging too much. would you all prefer a few prs, all of which build on each-other, and a final one that incorporates everything?
19:05:23 <sipa> i'll work on the segwit-by-default stuff for 0.15.1
19:05:31 <wumpus> added 11089
19:06:18 <cfields_> (#10663 is the first of those. It's by no means high priority, other than it's necessary for the rest)
19:06:18 <wumpus> cfields_: that depends; if some part stands on itself, it might make sense to PR it first then give it as a blocker
19:06:19 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10663 | net: split resolve out of connect by theuni · Pull Request #10663 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:41 <wumpus> that says enough, added 10663
19:06:45 <jonasschnelli> cfields_ I Prefer a single one to get the overall pictures
19:07:06 <cfields_> wumpus: thanks
19:07:07 <wumpus> but if it's a single one there's just so damn much to review
19:07:10 <instagibbs> jonasschnelli, or all of them, chained, with backpointers to first one to review
19:07:16 <gmaxwell> this gui crash issues should be considered a 0.15.1 blocker, but we still aren't sure of the precise cause.
19:07:25 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: sure, but you cant merge that...opening one which will be final eventually and then breaking it into chunks is also ok
19:07:30 <wumpus> gmaxwell: agree
19:07:33 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yup :(
19:07:46 <cfields_> jonasschnelli: ok, i can break them up into nice chunks, and have a tracking PR with them all rebased on top of eachother
19:07:51 <gmaxwell> considering the flood of reports I am really no longer able to believe we didn't recently introduce it.
19:07:56 <cfields_> i think that's pretty common these days
19:08:07 <wumpus> cfields_: sounds good to me
19:08:12 <gmaxwell> (maybe via a dep upgrade)
19:08:13 <michagogo> o/
19:08:27 <jonasschnelli> one for conceptual overview and multiple for real merge
19:08:28 <wumpus> gmaxwell: agreed
19:08:41 <cfields_> gmaxwell: possible that other clients are dinking with config files?
19:09:01 <jonasschnelli> (sorry phone typping)
19:09:04 <gmaxwell> that was a theory I had too but have seen no evidence of it.
19:09:20 <gmaxwell> harrymm: have you run bitcoin unlimited or bitcoin cash or likewise on that system you crashed on?
19:09:25 <morcos> Wouldn't we see 0.14 reports in that case
19:09:28 <wumpus> we really need a config or regtest dump from someone that has the issue
19:09:33 <BlueMatt> harrymm: how are those -qt debug symbols coming?
19:09:40 <wumpus> before they run -resetguisettings
19:09:55 <wumpus> in retrospect we should have made resetguisettings dump the settings to a backup file
19:10:00 <jonasschnelli> cfields_ : perfect
19:10:14 <cfields_> gmaxwell: iirc we didn't bump qt for 0.15. so deps seem unlikely
19:10:23 <achow101> wumpus: we should start doing that now
19:10:25 <wumpus> I mean you only run it when something is wrong
19:10:30 <wumpus> achow101: yes
19:11:06 <wumpus> #action Make -resetguisettings dump settings to troubleshooting file in datadir
19:11:09 <gmaxwell> cfields_: well I'm not completely sure that the issue is 0.15.x specific based on report load it could have been, say, 0.14.2 too ... and just a lot of people are upgrading.
19:11:32 <sipa> "oh, it's faster, i'll try running a full node again"
19:12:04 <cfields_> gmaxwell: what's the OS diversity?
19:12:06 <wumpus> but it was *never* reported for 0.14.x
19:12:14 <sipa> wumpus: fair point...
19:12:14 <wumpus> it would explain more reports, sure
19:12:22 <gmaxwell> we have a linux report now. so far mostly windows reports.
19:12:41 <achow101> gmaxwell: I suspect that's because more people use windows than linux
19:12:42 <gmaxwell> I don't think we've had a mac report. maybe there are just no mac users. :P
19:13:05 <cfields_> ah damn, i was thinking it could be a windows update
19:13:06 <sipa> did we update qt in between 0.14.2 and 0.15.0?
19:13:20 <harrymm> gmaxwell: not those you mentioned. i did try some other bitcoin python stuff at various times tho
19:13:32 <cfields_> hmm. I can run on osx and plug/unplug monitors like a madman.
19:13:37 <gmaxwell> harrymm: thanks.
19:13:43 <achow101> cfields_: it's not a monitor problem
19:13:49 <gmaxwell> So thats counter evidence to the theory that bch or bu is corrupting it.
19:14:03 <wumpus> the monitor problem just disappears the window
19:14:07 <wumpus> I think this is unrelated
19:14:15 <achow101> This is definitely unrelated
19:14:25 <cfields_> ok
19:14:38 <jonasschnelli> is that still the offscreen issue?
19:14:44 <gmaxwell> There may be two issues fixed with the same thing or two manifestiations of the same issue.
19:14:56 <harrymm> BlueMatt: i got the right symbols down and loaded into gdb, but there's still many symbols i don't have. i was checking if the relevant ones were there but not sure i have the right skills anyway so i will pastebin what i have
19:15:00 <achow101> jonasschnelli: it's the #11171 issue
19:15:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11171 | RC2 Exits After Initialization · Issue #11171 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:15:17 <achow101> which is not an offscreen issue although we initially thought it was
19:15:21 <jonasschnelli> again:  GUI: TransactionTablePriv::refreshWallet
19:15:48 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: was that the same problem?
19:15:57 * BlueMatt gets the impression there are at least 2 distinct issues here (+ the offscreen one which is not a segfault, right?)
19:16:02 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: I don'tremember that one was fixed by clearing gui settings
19:16:10 <wumpus> the offscreen issue is not a segfault, ever
19:16:14 <jonasschnelli> no... not possible IMO
19:16:31 <jonasschnelli> 11171 seems totally unrelated to the offscreen issue
19:16:34 <wumpus> the refreshWallet crash was intermittent, very hard to reproduce
19:16:34 * BlueMatt also doesnt believe this exists on 0.14.2...so far 2 reports from ppa folks, and they tend to be a rather well-upgraded bunch
19:16:37 <wumpus> this one is 100% reproducible
19:16:44 <wumpus> unless you clear the settings
19:16:56 <jonasschnelli> Okay. I'll track down 11171
19:17:01 <BlueMatt> harrymm: yea, pastebin what you have would be great
19:17:12 <achow101> jonasschnelli: that's what we're doing now with harrymm :)
19:17:31 <jonasschnelli> xyzzy099 == harrymm?
19:17:35 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: offscreen gets the same report from users though:  window doesn't appear, resetting the gui settings fixes it.
19:17:52 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I have tracked this down and it's no longer present in 0.15
19:17:52 <achow101> jonasschnelli: no, different people, same symptoms, possibly same problem
19:17:56 <jonasschnelli> (official builds)
19:18:08 <jonasschnelli> It may happen if you self compile with <Qt5.6
19:18:12 <achow101> (symptoms being crash after splash screen)
19:18:32 <wumpus> yes the offscreen one has unclear status on the release binaries, jonasschnelli's testing points at it being fixed
19:18:34 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: which issue is that?
19:18:40 <BlueMatt> ah, offscreen
19:18:52 <achow101> wumpus: I believe the offscreen issue should be fixed in 0.15
19:19:00 <wumpus> achow101: yes
19:19:01 <BlueMatt> it'd be nice to fix the qt5 issues so that ppa can upgrade to it instead of being stuck on qt4......
19:19:15 <jonasschnelli> It's fixed in 0.15.0 (I have tested with Win7,8.1/10)
19:19:16 <wumpus> BlueMatt: just wait for unity to die
19:19:20 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: how does <Qt5.6 come into it?
19:19:52 <wumpus> wasn't the most serious qt5 problem on ubuntu the tray icon thing? no such issue on GNOME
19:20:02 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I'm not sure if Qt is related. I could not find if the bug was fixed upstream (I think we had a Qt depdendency upgrade from 0.14 to 0.15) or if its fixed in out sources.
19:20:05 <BlueMatt> wumpus: heh, I mean there was discussion of killing the tray icon
19:20:12 <BlueMatt> wumpus: yes, I believe the tray icon was ~the only blocker
19:20:17 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: the problem is that we've had users reporting all through the rcs something that sounds like that, and now in releases. So just saying its fixed isn't helpful, since there is clearly something that isn't fixed.
19:20:32 <wumpus> anyhow that's yet another different issue
19:20:37 <BlueMatt> wumpus: there was some minimize issue that was also there, but I believe it was related...just kill the tray icon and its fixed, I think
19:20:46 <achow101> gmaxwell: jonasschnelli: I think you're talking about different issues
19:20:47 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: IMO its an upstream bug.
19:20:48 <harrymm> BlueMatt: best backtrace I have: https://pastebin.com/ZEZUhEDW
19:20:57 <wumpus> it's almost as if we have a lot of GUI issues and not many people working on the GUI :)
19:21:04 <sipa> jonasschnelli: i don't understand
19:21:13 <sipa> jonasschnelli: is it fixed, or is it an upstream bug?
19:21:23 <wumpus> both - upstream bug that is fixed
19:21:29 <jonasschnelli> the offscreen issue was present in our official 0.14.x bninaries while it's gone in our 0.15.0 binary
19:21:37 <gmaxwell> or "is it fixed" or "can't reproduce"?
19:21:38 <sipa> we're not talking about the offscreen issue...
19:21:48 <wumpus> let's discuss one issue at a time
19:21:51 <jonasschnelli> sipa: it is fixed,.. very likely in an upstream fix (could not track down the commit)
19:21:51 <wumpus> this is getting crazy
19:22:00 <sipa> jonasschnelli: then why are we getting reports?
19:22:12 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: what patch fixed it in 0.15?
19:22:26 <jonasschnelli> sipa: offscreen bug: could be because people compile with an Qt version below qt5.6?
19:22:31 <wumpus> we really need a test for the offscreen issue, right now we have *no* way to evaluate any fix
19:22:40 <wumpus> we could merge another PR that claims to fix it
19:22:45 <wumpus> but I'm kind of sick of that
19:22:49 <sipa> wait, i thought we were talking about the crash-at-startup issue?
19:22:50 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.15/src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp#L131 <-- the bug
19:22:58 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I need to track it down. I just tested 0.14.1 and 0.15.0 on win7,8.1,10 and verfied that it is fixed in 0.15
19:23:09 <BlueMatt> ok, but lets be clear there are multiple bugs here
19:23:09 <achow101> BlueMatt: yay!
19:23:13 <jonasschnelli> sipa: sorry,... we slipped to the offscreen issue.
19:23:18 <sipa> okay, ignore me
19:23:19 <BlueMatt> the offscreen issue, which jonasschnelli believes to be fixed
19:23:23 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: what does verified that it's fixed in 0.15 mean?  Does that just mean you were unable to reproduce it at all?
19:23:31 <BlueMatt> also the settings issue, which is L131 as above based on harrymm's backtrace
19:23:37 <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes, that means it
19:23:51 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I set the window position by RegEdit to 3000,3000, 0.14 has the issue, 0.15 doens't
19:24:07 <achow101> BlueMatt: I don't see how there's a bug there
19:24:23 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: thanks for doing a sane, reproducible test :)
19:25:02 <jonasschnelli> 11171 is far more important
19:25:10 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: okay, but if the issue users are hitting is that the use positions the window in the bottom left of the screen (below task bar) then they'd still be hitting it... since the reproduction was synthetic.
19:25:10 <wumpus> I agree
19:25:20 <wumpus> crash bugs are more important, and this happens for a lot more users
19:25:45 <gmaxwell> I know that at least one of the users I helped during the RCs wasn't crashing (Because they had to kill bitcoin-qt in their task manager)
19:25:52 <jtimon> oops, I'm late
19:25:57 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I can investigate again and report
19:25:58 <jtimon> yay 0.15!
19:26:03 <sipa> gmaxwell: sure, but there's only so much we can do
19:26:19 <gmaxwell> sipa: we could stop saving the position.
19:26:29 <wumpus> yes, ideally we should test all 8 areas outside the screen, something for an automated test
19:26:49 <wumpus> or just nuke the remember-position functionality
19:27:03 <jonasschnelli> my observation is that Qt handles offscreen situation pretty well... if a certain area of the window is offscreen, it re-centers.
19:27:05 <wumpus> the longer this remains an issue the more I'm tempted to the latter
19:27:17 <sipa> does -resetguisettings change anything but the remembered window coordinates?
19:27:35 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: QT5 but perhaps not QT4? (which, for example, the ppa uses, I believe)
19:27:37 <wumpus> sipa: yes, it clears all settings set through the gui optioins dialog
19:27:38 <jonasschnelli> It may kill your dbcache / proxy settings
19:27:47 <sipa> oh!
19:27:56 <jonasschnelli> Oh. PPA / QT4
19:28:02 <achow101> Oh, I think I found harrymm's bug
19:28:03 <jonasschnelli> Yes. The issue is very likely present there...
19:28:04 <wumpus> as well as all other things the GUI remembers (there might be something in the send dialog with fee, I vaguely remember)
19:28:07 <gmaxwell> sipa: you missed earlier discussion, based on debuglog traffic achow has suggested its actually the proxy that is implicated in the crash.,
19:28:11 <jonasschnelli> I don't see a reason to do the PPA with Qt4?
19:28:22 <BlueMatt> achow101: yea, there's only one button in that group
19:28:23 <gmaxwell> sipa: I pointed out that 0.15 did change proxy handling (name lookup) but a cause of a crash isn't obvious there.
19:28:25 <sipa> gmaxwell: ah
19:28:48 <achow101> BlueMatt: I mean how different settings for nCustomFeeRadio cause a segfault
19:28:50 <jonasschnelli> Maybe we just add a failsafe: if offscreen then re-center... (but sounds simpler then it is)
19:28:59 <gmaxwell> the user in here with the crash on linux knows the function where the segfault happens for him (inside a qt button setting function)
19:29:09 <wumpus> achow101: interesting, so it might be the custom fee setting?
19:29:12 <BlueMatt> achow101: yes
19:29:21 <wumpus> achow101: I forgot about that one completely as it's not in the options dialog
19:29:25 <BlueMatt> wumpus: it appears to be a what-button-had-you-clicked-on-in-14.2 issue
19:29:29 <achow101> wumpus: yes
19:29:36 <achow101> I set nCustomFeeRadio=1 and that causes a segfault
19:29:37 <gmaxwell> oh we also changed the options for fees at some point in recent memory, could people have settings that made sense in 0.14 but not now?
19:29:46 <wumpus> gmaxwell: ouch
19:29:53 <sipa> achow101: nice catch
19:29:57 <gmaxwell> sounds like it.
19:29:58 <BlueMatt> we deleted a button
19:30:04 <jonasschnelli> could it happend by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10769?
19:30:09 <BlueMatt> there is only one button in that group
19:30:09 <gmaxwell> consistent with the segfault location that harrymm reported too
19:30:12 <BlueMatt> so it obviously segfaults
19:30:57 <morcos> well that was a productive first half of the meeting
19:31:13 <wumpus> so nCustomFeeRadio should be removed completely? or are there other settitngs?
19:31:28 <harrymm> good work :)
19:31:37 <gmaxwell> 0.15.1 next week? :P
19:31:44 <wumpus> debugging an issue during the meeting is kinda cool
19:31:57 <jonasschnelli> heh...
19:32:00 <sipa> bughunting-by-committee
19:32:00 <dgenr8> my money was on sinister alt clients
19:32:27 <gmaxwell> oh had nothing to do with sinister, just incompatible.
19:32:34 <sipa> where everyone forgets it's really achow101 who found it
19:32:40 <wumpus> sinister alt clients could have more custom fee settings, we should be robust against corrupt configuration in any case :)
19:32:54 <gmaxwell> thats the advantages of committess, one guy does all the work and everyone gets the credit!
19:33:01 <achow101> lol
19:33:09 <wumpus> haha good old USSR-style
19:33:14 <achow101> I found a way to reliably reproduce it
19:33:27 <gmaxwell> committees*
19:33:27 <achow101> which is the ncustomefeeradio thing, but I'm not sure what to do going forward
19:33:38 <sipa> achow101: i'm pretty sure that's the root cause
19:33:41 <wumpus> so how do we solve it?
19:33:52 <sipa> do we have to figure that out now?
19:34:04 <sipa> if there are no other topics, why not, i guess
19:34:04 <gmaxwell> achow101 will figure it out. our work here is done.
19:34:06 <wumpus> no, not really, I just wonder what is the use of a radio button with one option
19:34:20 <jonasschnelli> I'll can tackle the groupCustomFee segfault today
19:34:27 <wumpus> anyhow, any other topics?
19:34:35 <gmaxwell> wumpus: so you have the freedom to choose the Correct option, of course.
19:34:49 <instagibbs> any color car as long as it is black
19:35:02 <wumpus> gmaxwell: lol!
19:35:03 <gmaxwell> time to ford ahead.
19:35:20 <BlueMatt> ok, fix is easy, I'll get it fixed right after meeting
19:35:22 <achow101> jonasschnelli: great!
19:35:24 <wumpus> anything to discuss for 0.15.1?
19:35:26 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6ba2214e0fe57ecb9271819d2422ec44a9020a8d fixes it for now
19:35:34 <sipa> if there's nothing else; i have some open questions about segwit-by-default support in 0.15.1
19:35:46 <wumpus> #topic segwit-by-default support in 0.15.1
19:35:54 <BlueMatt> oh, wait, hmm
19:36:13 <sipa> my idea was to have a cmdline option to select a default address style, which could be p2pkh, p2sh-p2wpkh, or p2wpkh
19:36:23 <BlueMatt> or jonasschnelli can do it
19:36:27 <sipa> (where the middle one is default)
19:36:31 <sipa> and have an optional argument to getnewaddress to override it
19:36:34 <BlueMatt> sipa: seems reasonable?
19:36:43 <sipa> open question: separate option for change?
19:37:05 <instagibbs> imo yes
19:37:14 <BlueMatt> imo yes
19:37:24 <achow101> sipa: yes
19:37:26 <sipa> open question: do we want to return both p2wpkh and p2sh-p2wpkh (for now), as there is an efficiency gain when you want to give both to a peer
19:37:42 <sipa> downside: may not want we want to support longer term with split chains
19:37:46 <achow101> no, I think that will confuse people
19:37:49 <sipa> upside: more efficient to rescan
19:37:52 <instagibbs> I'd say no
19:37:58 <jonasschnelli> may confuse
19:38:10 <instagibbs> users who care will crank the option surely
19:38:17 <gmaxwell> we can't do that by default, interface breaking change.  If you want to call getnewaddress with style=gangnam and it returns both, that would be fine.
19:38:39 <achow101> style=gangnam <-- lol
19:38:56 <morcos> yep, i tested, running 0.14, setting the at least button, 0.15 crashes
19:39:00 <sipa> but style=gangnam would be pre-deprecated, and scheduled for removal in a future version
19:39:03 <morcos> oops was backlogged
19:39:12 <achow101> morcos: good to know that
19:39:13 <wumpus> hahahahaa
19:39:57 <BlueMatt> achow101: morcos also tested the 6ba2...fix from above, which fixed it, though the real fix isnt something that stupidly hacky
19:40:05 <sipa> ok, end of my topic
19:40:07 <cfields_> let's just let users decide with a 1-option combo-box :p
19:40:10 <gmaxwell> I'd say we could make the GUI show both too, except the URI/qr code can't really do that.
19:40:19 <cfields_> er, radio
19:40:25 <sipa> cfields_: unary encoding, i like it
19:40:39 <morcos> wait, i'm confused
19:40:44 <morcos> are you serious about giving both addresses
19:40:48 <morcos> no, why would we do that
19:40:49 <BlueMatt> lets not do that
19:40:56 <BlueMatt> you could also just call getnewaddress twice
19:40:59 <BlueMatt> who cares
19:41:17 <gmaxwell> morcos: as an option. The reason is so you can say "here is the bech32 one if you can pay to it, otherwise use X"
19:41:17 <morcos> you should have a way of selecting which type of address you want for change or for getnewaddress
19:41:29 <morcos> then give them 2 different keys
19:41:34 <morcos> that's how it'll work in 0.16
19:41:56 <morcos> lets not try to be cheap and save a couple of keys and start teaching people that you can use one or the other
19:41:57 <sipa> BlueMatt: my wallet.dat barely fits on a 3.5" floppy disk anymore...
19:42:15 <cfields_> morcos: +1
19:42:17 <instagibbs> will there be an argument to getnewaddress to override?
19:42:21 <instagibbs> id hope so
19:42:21 <morcos> i agree that's a downside, but its more important to set the precedent that these thigns are NOT interoperable
19:42:24 <sipa> instagibbs: i hope so, yes
19:42:24 <morcos> yes
19:42:30 <instagibbs> ok, then that's fine
19:42:34 <gmaxwell> okay... when I talked to sipa about it my objection was that we couldn't support it in the future. his counter was that we don't have to offer it in the future.
19:42:35 <instagibbs> i prefer
19:42:42 <BlueMatt> somehow I doubt bdb is useable on floppy-latency disks anyway :p
19:42:53 <gmaxwell> instagibbs: yes, there would be an option, setting would just set the default.
19:43:14 <instagibbs> then I see no reason to return both
19:43:20 <wumpus> yes,we need to make it very clear they're not interoperable, that you can't, in general just convert the one to the othe and have it work
19:43:30 <BlueMatt> then require two getnewaddress calls
19:43:38 <sipa> sounds good, you need to call getnewaddress twice
19:43:40 <sipa> ack
19:43:44 <achow101> +1
19:43:46 <sipa> no gangnam
19:44:29 <morcos> also in the scheme of things, each 0.15.1 wallet is wasting 2000 + N * (# getnewaddress calls) + (# changes) keys.... where N is 2 if you do what I want (only in the cases where you give out both) or 1 if you do what you want
19:44:40 <morcos> it makes no difference relatively speaking for almost all users
19:45:26 <jtimon> wumpus: ack on removing remember position functionality until we can test it automatically
19:45:48 <gmaxwell> jtimon has the gribble disease.
19:45:56 <wumpus> jtimon: that'd make sense, I guess
19:46:09 <gmaxwell> (20 minutes behind. :) )
19:46:16 <wumpus> seems the segwit-by-default topic is conclded, anything else?
19:47:15 <gmaxwell> I think we need to announce a workaround for this issue we all collectively figured out through our joint effort where no one person did all the work during the meeting.
19:47:23 <wumpus> haha yes gribble's behavior seemed very curious and random, before I realized it was just backlogged (or rather, github was?)
19:47:43 <BlueMatt> yes, do we have a mechanism for release errata?
19:47:46 <wumpus> or make a
19:48:04 <BlueMatt> given the ppa is still not up (cause arm qt...) I'll probably ship that with the hacky workaround patch posted above
19:48:15 <BlueMatt> unless there are objections
19:48:18 <wumpus> did you manage to debug the ARM qt issue? I'm curious
19:48:29 <wumpus> no objections, if you can patch it in your distro, do so
19:48:35 <wumpus> it's zero risk...
19:48:44 <BlueMatt> there appear to now be at least two separate issues, a miscompile, and I now have a stacktrace for another test_bitcoin-qt fail that I'm looking at now
19:48:46 <achow101> BlueMatt: I believe (not tested yet) that you can just remove L131 entirely
19:48:55 <sipa> let's fix the things at least in the 0.15 branch
19:49:16 <gmaxwell> I won't ack because I do none of the required work for it but it might be nice.
19:49:17 <sipa> then depending on progress we can see whether it goes in 0.15.1, or if a may be needed (at release manager's discretion...)
19:49:20 <wumpus> achow101: possibly, but BlueMatt's fix is obviosuly correct, a better fix is to just remove the setting completely
19:49:21 <BlueMatt> achow101: well the commit linked above works, so whatever
19:49:26 <wumpus> achow101: and the single-choice radio button
19:49:27 <gmaxwell> what sipa said
19:49:43 <wumpus> but for a quick hack that change is good
19:49:53 <morcos> in master can we please fix properly, remove the whole group
19:49:59 <wumpus> yes
19:50:01 <sipa> yes
19:50:03 <achow101> yes
19:50:14 <gmaxwell> yes
19:50:53 <gmaxwell> someone will need to contemplate how to prevent this kind of issue in the future.
19:50:56 <wumpus> well yes let's fix it on the branch then decide whether to do
19:51:10 <wumpus> better testing of the gui is the only answer
19:51:13 <achow101> gmaxwell: fuzz the qsettings options :)
19:51:17 <instagibbs> remove all features until qt is a single button
19:51:32 <jonasschnelli> Better GUI tests... but more important, "upgrade tests"
19:51:33 <gmaxwell> "moon"
19:51:41 <wumpus> hah
19:51:44 <jonasschnelli> Non of our test do cover upgrade of wallets, etc.
19:51:44 <gmaxwell> (responding to instagibbs)
19:52:00 <instagibbs> jonasschnelli, hmm good point
19:52:26 <jonasschnelli> Upgrade tests would probably require static data files from older versions....
19:52:31 <wumpus> well at least the reduced one radio buttons group to one button, that's a start...
19:52:34 <morcos> was fuzz qsettings a joke?   i did that with the fee estimation changes manually, i think thats a good idea
19:52:37 <wumpus> s/the/we/
19:52:42 <achow101> morcos: not really
19:52:56 <wumpus> no, it's not a joke, it'd help with robustness against corrupt configs a lot
19:53:03 <morcos> ok, the smiley threw me
19:53:05 <wumpus> but as we're not even fuzzing bitcoin.conf settings yet
19:53:07 <achow101> but it would mean a lot more changes since weird shit in qsettings totally screws up qt
19:53:22 <morcos> ha ha, fuzzing bitcoin.conf DEFINITELY breaks things
19:53:23 <achow101> we would need better bad-setting rejection
19:53:29 <wumpus> gui testing is always at least 3 times as much work
19:53:30 <jtimon> sipa: yeah, both formats seems like un ugly optimization. Doesn't look like it's worth it
19:54:09 <gmaxwell> sipa: I think he's still 20min behind.
19:54:11 <jonasschnelli> Not sure if fuzzing qt-settings (QSettings) make sense. It's not a file edited by users
19:54:16 <morcos> is jtimon working on-site on the blockstream Mars project
19:54:17 <BlueMatt> jtimon: is stuck on moon
19:54:21 <jtimon> gmaxwell: well, I arrived 30 mins late
19:54:22 <jonasschnelli> Fuzzing peers.dat or similar would also make little sense I guess
19:54:23 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: but it can get corrupt, like anything
19:54:43 <wumpus> though I agree there's a limit
19:54:54 <instagibbs> that would at least test it handles corrupted files right
19:55:00 <instagibbs> recently ran into a case where we werent
19:55:17 <jonasschnelli> Corrupt files should be handled by Qt IMO
19:55:25 <morcos> usually with bitcoin.conf we don't change the meaning of the options (cough cough sipa)
19:55:26 <jonasschnelli> The file itself is hidden on our application layer
19:55:30 <jonasschnelli> We just deal with QSettings
19:55:42 <morcos> we could be better about making sure we rename options in QT if we are goign to change their meaning
19:55:47 <wumpus> yes
19:56:00 <wumpus> much, much better to lose the setting than crash
19:56:03 <jonasschnelli> morcos: yes!
19:56:06 <wumpus> unless it's soomething like the proxy
19:56:40 <wumpus> but a nicety like remembering the fee setting? nah
19:56:42 <jtimon> ? why not 15.0.1 directly and we stop writing the 0. prefix now? /me hides
19:56:42 <jonasschnelli> I don't understand why the crash does not happen on OSX (could only reproduce on Linux)
19:57:11 <wumpus> likely the implementation of radio button group is different there
19:57:36 <wumpus> making it return e.g. a dummy object instead of corruption or null when reading out of range
19:57:44 <wumpus> macosx users just got lucky
19:58:09 <sipa> wumpus: we have occasionally had x.x.x.1 released for bugfixes that affect just some platforms
19:58:14 <sipa> *releases
19:58:14 <instagibbs> 2 minutes
19:58:15 <morcos> one could argue they were silently forced to lose their at least setting which made them erroneously pay the wrong fees
19:58:26 <wumpus> sipa: yes, I wouldn't like to burn 0.15.1 on this mainly
19:58:32 <sipa> wumpus: agreed
19:58:48 <jtimon> finally catched up...to late to suggest a topic, but perhaps we can talk about it after the meeting
19:59:21 <jtimon> is about an index for scriptPubKeys
19:59:42 <wumpus> yes, we're done for today
19:59:45 <wumpus> #endmeeting