19:00:28 <wumpus> #startmeeting
19:00:28 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 14 19:00:28 2019 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:28 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:40 <ariard> hi
19:00:48 <moneyball> Is it possible for me to speak to my topic first? Should be short and I only have 10 minutes
19:00:55 <digi_james> hi
19:00:56 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james amiti fjahr
19:00:58 <wumpus> jeremyrubin lightlike
19:01:05 <lightlike> hi
19:01:08 <wumpus> moneyball: sure!
19:01:19 <moneyball> Ty
19:01:19 <wumpus> #topic next CoreDev
19:01:19 <jamesob> oh man it's thursday already hi
19:01:19 <achow101> hi
19:02:08 <meshcollider> hi
19:02:13 <moneyball> So I’m proposing next Core dev to be in March in SF. The 3 days prior to Bitcoin 2020 conference
19:02:14 <BlueMatt> gogo moneyball
19:02:27 <BlueMatt> sgtm
19:02:30 <moneyball> Let me know if there are major concerns with this
19:02:33 <achow101> we've already had one in sf
19:02:53 <moneyball> The conference is willing to find and pay for venue and breakfast and lunch
19:03:12 <moneyball> achow101 e we haven’t had west coast the past 3
19:03:13 <jnewbery> last three have been Europe, Asia, US east coast. Seems reasonable to have the next one on the west coast
19:03:15 <BlueMatt> achow101: ehh, its been quite a while though....
19:03:27 <moneyball> Europe, Asia, nyc past 3
19:03:41 <moneyball> And we are likely to do Europe in the fall 2020
19:03:59 <jnewbery> moneyball: do you have somewhere planned for fall 2020?
19:04:08 <wumpus> seems fine to me
19:04:09 <moneyball> A candidate is London
19:04:14 <wumpus> oh cool
19:04:14 <moneyball> Scaling bitcoin
19:04:17 <jnewbery> +1 :)
19:04:24 <moneyball> Thought you’d like
19:04:37 <jamesob> I'm amazed moneyball is voluntarily signing up to plan more than one future conference
19:05:31 <wumpus> heh
19:05:58 <jonatack> hi
19:06:14 <wumpus> it seems there's no one with major concerns
19:06:19 <moneyball> Ok great
19:07:04 <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
19:07:24 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8    7 blockers, 7 chasing concept ACK again
19:07:51 <wumpus> anything to be added/removed? or ready for merge?
19:07:58 <jamesob> can I add #16945? I think it's pretty close
19:08:01 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16945 | refactor: introduce CChainState::GetCoinsCacheSizeState by jamesob · Pull Request #16945 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:08:11 <wumpus> looks like #16323 is closed, let's remove it
19:08:14 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16323 | Call ProcessNewBlock() asynchronously by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #16323 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:08:25 <jamesob> the assumeutxo PRs are probably gonna start to get more... substantial
19:08:44 <BlueMatt> indeed, got no review, scary changes are scary, so not worth rebasing.
19:08:55 <wumpus> BlueMatt: yeah...
19:09:25 <wumpus> added 16945
19:09:28 <jamesob> ty!
19:09:48 <wumpus> (to blockers, I guess, not chasing concept)
19:09:58 <jamesob> wumpus: right
19:10:26 <wumpus> #topic version
19:10:44 <wumpus> so, we were about to do the final release preparation for 0.19.0, then #17449 came up
19:10:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17449 | fix uninitialized variable nMinerConfirmationWindow by bitcoinVBR · Pull Request #17449 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:29 <wumpus> and field of the CChainParams structure is used uninitialized in a computation, and this can have effect on GUI warnings
19:12:03 <wumpus> so I guess it's serious enough to forego 0.19.0 and do immediately
19:12:15 <MarcoFalke> I'd say so too
19:12:18 <achow101> ack
19:12:46 <jnewbery> I agree :(
19:12:48 <wumpus> this does give some logistical issues, I don't think we've ever skipped a major release, but doing with the 0.19.0 release notes and releasing it as if it is 0.19.0 should work, I guess
19:12:55 <MarcoFalke> Even though it seems the compiler might have compiled it correctly with -O2, not worth to rely on that
19:13:23 <MarcoFalke> It includes the -cli fix as well
19:13:26 <wumpus> it might have cuased #16697
19:13:27 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16697 | Unknown version bit fork activated warning · Issue #16697 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:13:32 <MarcoFalke> So a short release notes would make sense?
19:13:43 <wumpus> just add them to the 0.19.0 release notes
19:13:49 <MarcoFalke> Oh right
19:14:42 <wumpus> ok, seems there's agreement on how to go forward, any other topics?
19:14:55 <MarcoFalke> no
19:15:43 <wumpus> I guess no new rc cycle is needed?
19:17:02 <wumpus> I don't think that is necessary with just the #17417 and #17449
19:17:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17417 | [0.19] cli: fix -getinfo output when compiled with no wallet by fanquake · Pull Request #17417 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17449 | fix uninitialized variable nMinerConfirmationWindow by bitcoinVBR · Pull Request #17449 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:14 <jnewbery> topic suggestion: Maybe I could give people a quick update on review club?
19:17:22 <wumpus> otherwise there will be even more delay
19:17:26 <wumpus> ok
19:17:34 <wumpus> #topic Review club update
19:17:59 <jnewbery> we've had ~ 30 review club meetings so far. I'm very happy with the quality of questions that we've had
19:18:05 <jnewbery> https://bitcoincore.reviews/
19:18:07 <wumpus> 30 already? wow
19:18:54 <jnewbery> there are a group of very regular attendees who you might recognize from PR comments: lightlike, jkczyz, zenogais, fjahr, pinheadmz, amiti, ariard, ...
19:19:24 <jnewbery> and we've had a few guest hosts as well: harding, MarcoFalke, ...
19:19:46 <jnewbery> I still think it's a great way to help new contributors. If you're interested in guest hosting some time, please message me
19:20:17 <jnewbery> Also tell your friends who want to start contributing that reviewing/testing is a great way to help, and review club could be a fun way for them to start
19:20:45 <wumpus> yes I think it's a great initative to get people involved inreview!
19:21:13 <jnewbery> (to clarify: I'm talking about PR review club, not taproot review club, which is another great initiative!)
19:21:24 <jnewbery> that's all I had
19:22:15 <wumpus> thank you
19:22:38 <wumpus> I'm trying to be involved once in a while too! but usually miss the meetings :(
19:22:46 <wumpus> any other topics?
19:23:08 <jonatack> i discussed it a fair amount in the latest stephan livera podcast too
19:23:27 <jonatack> including links to the club website and twitter account
19:23:30 <wumpus> great!
19:23:53 <jnewbery> thanks jonatack. I should have included you in the regular attendees list!
19:24:47 <jonatack> jnewbery: np!
19:24:50 <wumpus> #endmeeting