12020-12-15T00:01:52 *** potato <potato!~Thunderbi@240d:1a:3d4:7d00:9851:bcf:fdb3:6c0d> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22020-12-15T00:08:11 *** jesseposner <jesseposner!~jp@2601:643:8980:bfd2:98c1:5a96:a9af:37d1> has quit IRC (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
32020-12-15T00:12:44 *** mol_ <mol_!~mol@unaffiliated/molly> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
42020-12-15T00:16:36 *** mol <mol!~mol@unaffiliated/molly> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
52020-12-15T00:22:49 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@mx-ll-171.5.29-209.dynamic.3bb.co.th> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62020-12-15T00:22:50 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@mx-ll-171.5.29-209.dynamic.3bb.co.th> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
72020-12-15T00:23:22 *** filchef <filchef!~filchef@89.253.179.83> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
82020-12-15T00:29:03 *** Tennis <Tennis!~Tennis@unaffiliated/tennis> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
92020-12-15T00:30:51 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@mx-ll-171.5.29-209.dynamic.3bb.co.th> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102020-12-15T00:43:14 *** dermoth <dermoth!~dermoth@unaffiliated/dermoth> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
112020-12-15T00:57:05 *** Sebimot0 <Sebimot0!~tom@230.15.195.173.client.static.strong-in52.as13926.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
122020-12-15T00:59:03 *** dermoth <dermoth!~dermoth@unaffiliated/dermoth> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132020-12-15T01:04:17 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
142020-12-15T01:07:29 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152020-12-15T01:07:30 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv opened pull request #20658: ci: Move linter task to cirrus (master...linter-on-cirrus) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20658
162020-12-15T01:07:31 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
172020-12-15T01:29:49 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw> has quit IRC ()
182020-12-15T01:36:12 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192020-12-15T01:39:23 *** vasild <vasild!~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
202020-12-15T01:40:16 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
212020-12-15T01:40:30 *** joelklabo <joelklabo!~textual@108-196-216-127.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has quit IRC (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
222020-12-15T01:41:06 *** vasild <vasild!~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232020-12-15T01:53:16 *** jeremyrubin <jeremyrubin!~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
242020-12-15T01:58:58 *** Guest7389 <Guest7389!~uptime@84.39.117.57> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
252020-12-15T02:04:15 *** jeremyrubin <jeremyrubin!~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262020-12-15T02:06:27 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272020-12-15T02:10:30 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
282020-12-15T02:13:53 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292020-12-15T02:18:38 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
302020-12-15T02:19:36 *** pwgn <pwgn!~pwgn@139.28.218.148> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312020-12-15T02:20:01 *** molz_ <molz_!~mol@unaffiliated/molly> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322020-12-15T02:23:37 *** mol_ <mol_!~mol@unaffiliated/molly> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
332020-12-15T02:26:50 *** brianhoffman <brianhoffman!~brianhoff@pool-71-191-34-154.washdc.fios.verizon.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342020-12-15T02:27:00 *** Klox04809318631 <Klox04809318631!~Klox@c-24-1-131-19.hsd1.il.comcast.net> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
352020-12-15T02:27:09 *** Klox048093186316 <Klox048093186316!~Klox@c-24-1-131-19.hsd1.il.comcast.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362020-12-15T03:17:08 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372020-12-15T03:22:03 *** virtu <virtu!~virtu@gateway/tor-sasl/virtu> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
382020-12-15T03:33:41 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
392020-12-15T03:35:26 *** Asbestos_Vapor <Asbestos_Vapor!~Mercury_V@174-082-166-092.res.spectrum.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
402020-12-15T03:37:51 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
412020-12-15T03:38:24 *** hidrodo <hidrodo!76c811dd@118.200.17.221> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422020-12-15T03:38:37 *** Mercury_Vapor <Mercury_Vapor!~Mercury_V@174-082-166-092.res.spectrum.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
432020-12-15T03:43:15 *** virtu <virtu!~virtu@gateway/tor-sasl/virtu> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
442020-12-15T04:04:58 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
452020-12-15T04:05:14 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462020-12-15T04:05:27 *** justanotheruser <justanotheruser!~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
472020-12-15T04:10:59 *** pinheadm_ <pinheadm_!~pinheadmz@71.190.30.138> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
482020-12-15T04:23:57 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
492020-12-15T04:27:05 *** justanotheruser <justanotheruser!~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
502020-12-15T04:34:57 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512020-12-15T04:39:24 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
522020-12-15T04:48:09 *** hidrodo <hidrodo!76c811dd@118.200.17.221> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
532020-12-15T04:51:47 *** onokatio <onokatio!~Thunderbi@240d:1a:833:e500:a192:a11d:eb50:7386> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
542020-12-15T04:52:47 *** onokatio <onokatio!~Thunderbi@240d:1a:833:e500:a192:a11d:eb50:7386> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
552020-12-15T04:54:54 *** wumpus <wumpus!~ircclient@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
562020-12-15T04:55:18 *** wumpus <wumpus!~ircclient@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572020-12-15T05:14:37 *** onokatio <onokatio!~Thunderbi@240d:1a:833:e500:a192:a11d:eb50:7386> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
582020-12-15T05:25:55 *** onokatio <onokatio!~Thunderbi@240d:1a:833:e500:a192:a11d:eb50:7386> has quit IRC (Quit: onokatio)
592020-12-15T05:34:16 *** raj_149 <raj_149!~quassel@ec2-18-217-191-36.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com> has quit IRC (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
602020-12-15T05:35:34 *** raj_149 <raj_149!~quassel@ec2-18-217-191-36.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
612020-12-15T05:51:43 *** hidrodo <hidrodo!76c811dd@118.200.17.221> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622020-12-15T05:52:35 *** hidrodo <hidrodo!76c811dd@118.200.17.221> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
632020-12-15T06:01:24 *** dermoth <dermoth!~dermoth@unaffiliated/dermoth> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
642020-12-15T06:04:34 *** Emcy <Emcy!~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
652020-12-15T06:10:11 *** jonatack <jonatack!~jon@134.19.179.195> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
662020-12-15T06:10:57 *** IGHOR <IGHOR!~quassel@176.121.4.135> has quit IRC (Quit: http://quassel-irc.org ? ??????????? ?????????. ????-??.)
672020-12-15T06:12:20 *** IGHOR <IGHOR!~quassel@176.121.4.135> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682020-12-15T06:16:00 *** jonatack <jonatack!~jon@88.124.242.136> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
692020-12-15T06:22:32 *** Emcy <Emcy!~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
702020-12-15T06:38:50 *** dermoth <dermoth!~dermoth@unaffiliated/dermoth> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
712020-12-15T07:22:16 *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@h-13-35.A163.priv.bahnhof.se> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
722020-12-15T07:26:03 *** DeanGuss <DeanGuss!~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732020-12-15T08:12:49 <yanmaani> When running Core, I got the following error, because my blocks/ folder was a broken symlink (target unmounted):
742020-12-15T08:13:13 <yanmaani> boost::filesystem::create_directory: File exists: "/x/Data/blocks"
752020-12-15T08:13:32 <yanmaani> I'm curious - where is the call to create_directory? Because it's only used in tests, as far as I can see
762020-12-15T08:15:57 *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
772020-12-15T08:23:11 *** queip <queip!~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
782020-12-15T08:27:57 *** queip <queip!~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
792020-12-15T08:29:23 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802020-12-15T08:29:24 <bitcoin-git> [gui] jonasschnelli merged pull request #115: Replace "Hide tray icon" option with positive "Show tray icon" one (master...201024-tray) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/115
812020-12-15T08:29:24 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
822020-12-15T08:29:43 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
832020-12-15T08:29:44 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/94a9cd25fd17...33d633726922
842020-12-15T08:29:45 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 17174f8 Hennadii Stepanov: gui: Replace "Hide tray icon" option with positive "Show tray icon" one
852020-12-15T08:29:46 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 03edb52 Hennadii Stepanov: qt: Remove redundant BitcoinGUI::setTrayIconVisible
862020-12-15T08:29:47 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 33d6337 Jonas Schnelli: Merge bitcoin-core/gui#115: Replace "Hide tray icon" option with positive ...
872020-12-15T08:29:48 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
882020-12-15T08:30:18 <jonasschnelli> yanmaani: GetBlocksDir() in system.cpp
892020-12-15T08:31:13 <yanmaani> ah, thanks
902020-12-15T08:33:39 *** gribble <gribble!~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
912020-12-15T08:34:43 <jnewbery> andytoshi: if you're mining to the wallet's address, you could call generate(), get the block hash, fetch the coinbase txid, and then wait_until() the wallet's listunspent includes that transaction output
922020-12-15T08:51:19 *** pwgn <pwgn!~pwgn@139.28.218.148> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
932020-12-15T09:08:55 *** EagleTM <EagleTM!~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
942020-12-15T09:12:06 *** creffett|irssi <creffett|irssi!~creffett|@185.163.110.125> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
952020-12-15T09:14:02 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@mx-ll-171.5.29-209.dynamic.3bb.co.th> has quit IRC (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
962020-12-15T09:17:22 *** gribble <gribble!~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
972020-12-15T09:20:30 *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
982020-12-15T09:28:53 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
992020-12-15T09:40:52 *** jeremyrubin <jeremyrubin!~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1002020-12-15T09:58:38 *** promag_ <promag_!~promag@188.250.84.129> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1012020-12-15T09:59:53 *** promag_ <promag_!~promag@188.250.84.129> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022020-12-15T10:04:28 *** kexkey <kexkey!~kexkey@static-198-54-132-174.cust.tzulo.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1032020-12-15T10:47:49 *** hhghhkqweaeasd <hhghhkqweaeasd!~flack@p200300d46f24de0023b487635c149e9b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1042020-12-15T10:47:57 *** kljasdfvv <kljasdfvv!~flack@p200300d46f24de00a3ce7892b0332293.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1052020-12-15T10:57:41 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@mx-ll-171.5.29-209.dynamic.3bb.co.th> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062020-12-15T11:03:59 *** sr_gi <sr_gi!~sr_gi@80.174.218.168.dyn.user.ono.com> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1072020-12-15T11:04:25 *** sr_gi <sr_gi!~sr_gi@80.174.218.168.dyn.user.ono.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082020-12-15T11:18:30 *** Britney33Rosenba <Britney33Rosenba!~Britney33@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092020-12-15T11:22:56 *** Britney33Rosenba <Britney33Rosenba!~Britney33@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1102020-12-15T11:28:23 *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1112020-12-15T11:30:44 <wumpus> luke-jr: qthreadpoolthread is used with qthreadpool, which is used by qconcurrent (high level concurrency framework), neither of which we AFAIK currently use... even then, 64 seems excessive, but i guess they didn't really think about the scenario with so many cores. They should all be constantly sleeping so I guess it's not much overhead besides some memory
1122020-12-15T11:31:43 <wumpus> using QRunnable for some things sounds interesting
1132020-12-15T11:35:06 *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142020-12-15T11:37:02 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@mx-ll-171.5.29-209.dynamic.3bb.co.th> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1152020-12-15T12:25:32 *** creffett|irssi <creffett|irssi!~creffett|@185.163.110.125> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
1162020-12-15T12:49:28 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172020-12-15T12:49:30 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/33d633726922...f1f2418433c9
1182020-12-15T12:49:30 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2f3f1ae fanquake: net: remove SetMaxOutboundTarget
1192020-12-15T12:49:31 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b117eb1 fanquake: net: remove SetMaxOutboundTimeframe
1202020-12-15T12:49:32 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 173d0d3 fanquake: net: remove nMaxOutboundTimeframe from connection options
1212020-12-15T12:49:34 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1222020-12-15T12:49:48 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232020-12-15T12:49:48 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #20253: net: use std::chrono throughout maxOutbound logic (master...net_unused_outbound) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20253
1242020-12-15T12:49:49 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1252020-12-15T12:56:02 *** Highway61 <Highway61!~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262020-12-15T13:13:12 *** einyx <einyx!einyx@fsf/member/einyx> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1272020-12-15T13:16:41 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282020-12-15T13:16:41 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #20660: Move signet onion seed from v2 to v3 (master...2020/12/signet-v3-onion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20660
1292020-12-15T13:16:42 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1302020-12-15T13:26:50 *** mol <mol!~mol@unaffiliated/molly> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312020-12-15T13:29:16 *** molz_ <molz_!~mol@unaffiliated/molly> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1322020-12-15T13:29:22 *** spake <spake!~spake@178.162.209.171> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332020-12-15T13:34:13 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@2403:6200:8876:cecf:a55b:90cf:1ae1:4d7b> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342020-12-15T13:36:10 *** vasild_ <vasild_!~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352020-12-15T13:36:11 *** vasild <vasild!~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild> has quit IRC (Disconnected by services)
1362020-12-15T13:36:12 *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
1372020-12-15T13:40:52 *** lontivero <lontivero!~lontivero@186.183.3.236> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382020-12-15T13:50:28 *** mol_ <mol_!~mol@unaffiliated/molly> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392020-12-15T13:53:30 *** einyx <einyx!~einyx@fsf/member/einyx> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402020-12-15T13:53:31 *** mol <mol!~mol@unaffiliated/molly> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1412020-12-15T13:54:36 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422020-12-15T13:55:43 *** bitdex <bitdex!~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1432020-12-15T13:56:21 *** bitdex <bitdex!~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442020-12-15T14:03:59 *** Lightlike <Lightlike!b9ff439e@185.255.67.158> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452020-12-15T14:05:41 *** Lightlike <Lightlike!b9ff439e@185.255.67.158> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1462020-12-15T14:08:10 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.172> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472020-12-15T14:11:53 *** einyx <einyx!~einyx@fsf/member/einyx> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1482020-12-15T14:12:01 *** einyx_ <einyx_!~einyx@fsf/member/einyx> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492020-12-15T14:13:39 *** pinheadmz <pinheadmz!~pinheadmz@71.190.30.138> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502020-12-15T14:19:04 *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:5809:f8dd:2776:36cd> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512020-12-15T14:21:08 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@2403:6200:8876:cecf:a55b:90cf:1ae1:4d7b> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1522020-12-15T14:30:07 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.172> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1532020-12-15T14:34:03 <jnewbery> Hi folks. We have a p2p meeting in half an hour. Only one proposed topic so far: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings#15-dec-2020. Feel free to add topics between now and 15:00 UTC.
1542020-12-15T14:34:07 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15 | Option to specify external IP address · Issue #15 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1552020-12-15T14:35:19 <jnewbery> We won't have our normal meeting in two weeks' time (29 Dec), so this is the last p2p meeting of the year. The next will be on 12 Jan 2021.
1562020-12-15T14:35:25 <harding> I heard there was a problem with osx signing. Does that mean https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.21.0/test.rc3/bitcoin-0.21.0rc3-osx.dmg is not going to work or will print some scary warning to users who try to run it?
1572020-12-15T14:36:59 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.108> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582020-12-15T14:46:14 <jonasschnelli> harding: it will not run
1592020-12-15T14:46:31 <jonasschnelli> harding: but you can use the unsigned version and right-click start it
1602020-12-15T14:46:51 <harding> jonasschnelli: ok, good to know. Thanks!
1612020-12-15T14:56:14 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1622020-12-15T14:56:50 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
1632020-12-15T14:57:32 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642020-12-15T15:00:46 <MarcoFalke> meeting?
1652020-12-15T15:01:02 <jnewbery> #startmeeting
1662020-12-15T15:01:02 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Tue Dec 15 15:01:02 2020 UTC. The chair is jnewbery. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings.
1672020-12-15T15:01:02 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
1682020-12-15T15:01:09 <jnewbery> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: achow101 aj amiti ariard bluematt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd
1692020-12-15T15:01:12 <gleb> Hi
1702020-12-15T15:01:15 <jnewbery> phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild wumpus
1712020-12-15T15:01:21 *** Lightlike <Lightlike!b9ff439e@185.255.67.158> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722020-12-15T15:01:22 <jonatack> hi
1732020-12-15T15:01:30 <ariard> hi
1742020-12-15T15:01:42 <aj> hey
1752020-12-15T15:01:44 <ajonas> Hi
1762020-12-15T15:01:52 <jnewbery> hi all. Welcome to the last p2p meeting of 2020!
1772020-12-15T15:01:58 <fanquake> hi
1782020-12-15T15:02:25 <jnewbery> We have one proposed topic: Review of the P2P Review Process (ariard). Before we get into that, does anyone have any proposed topics that they want to add?
1792020-12-15T15:03:23 <jnewbery> ok, onto our one topic
1802020-12-15T15:03:33 <jnewbery> #topic Review of the P2P Review Process (ariard)
1812020-12-15T15:03:33 <core-meetingbot> topic: Review of the P2P Review Process (ariard)
1822020-12-15T15:03:39 <ariard> hi
1832020-12-15T15:04:18 <ariard> so as it's the last p2p meeting of 2020, it's a great opportunity to review our p2p review process
1842020-12-15T15:05:05 <ariard> so I just have an opening question and let's discuss from it
1852020-12-15T15:05:27 <ariard> which PR reviews stand-out as productive and which were productive ?
1862020-12-15T15:05:37 <ariard> is there anything we can learn from these examples
1872020-12-15T15:05:50 <ariard> I did attach some past PRs on the wiki page : https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings
1882020-12-15T15:06:23 <ariard> let's start by a roundtable, can anyone tell one PR review liked on the past year :) ?
1892020-12-15T15:06:45 <gleb> I think the topic is worthy but itâs much broader then what we can discuss here in tea time, although gathering initial thoughts might work
1902020-12-15T15:07:00 <gleb> in real time*
1912020-12-15T15:07:20 <ariard> gleb: that's fine start by sharing your initial thoughts
1922020-12-15T15:07:33 <MarcoFalke> So I think the review process hasn't changed fundamentally in the past years. We made some minor changes to ACKs (allowing them to be more verbose, Approach, Concept, ...), also there is a REVIEWERS file where people can sign up for notifications if their watched file changes...
1932020-12-15T15:07:36 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.108> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1942020-12-15T15:08:17 <MarcoFalke> Though, based on the blog post by ajonas many raised a concern that review isn't focussed enough.
1952020-12-15T15:08:18 <gleb> I havenât really noticed REVIEWERS file in action yet, although I liked the concept
1962020-12-15T15:08:36 <MarcoFalke> I see that too, escpecially on larger pulls.
1972020-12-15T15:08:41 <kanzure> there was a recent twitter survey asking whether reviews feel different lately. an actual non-twitter survey might be helpful.
1982020-12-15T15:08:58 <ariard> MarcoFalke: which blog post? didn't read it
1992020-12-15T15:09:01 <gleb> kanzure: ack but asking the right question matters
2002020-12-15T15:09:16 <jonatack> ariard: in general, i can think of many outstanding reviews (and there are some outstanding reviewers). Coverage of great reviews was actually proposed one year ago for Bitcoin Optech: https://github.com/bitcoinops/bitcoinops.github.io/issues/301
2012020-12-15T15:09:17 <MarcoFalke> ariard: kanzure: ajonas did a writeup on a 2019 survey
2022020-12-15T15:09:30 <MarcoFalke> was shared in the last general meeting
2032020-12-15T15:09:38 <ariard> ah this one, okay
2042020-12-15T15:09:54 <ajonas> https://adamjonas.com/bitcoin/coredev/retro/coredev-2019-retro/
2052020-12-15T15:10:34 <MarcoFalke> So I think it would be good if there was a signal where a contributor could simply express interest in doing a review (at a later time)
2062020-12-15T15:10:58 <jonatack> ariard: I have a short exposition on this topic that I wrote in reply to your question yesterday, can present it here after the meeting or maybe a as twitter thread
2072020-12-15T15:11:19 <ariard> jonatack: yes I feel sometimes it's hard to have a clear overview of what's the blocker for the PR (waiting author, dependency, moar-concept-ack, metrics, ...)
2082020-12-15T15:11:19 <MarcoFalke> Then, it would be easier for maintainers to gather how much review interest there is and based on that ping people at around the same time to start digging into the review
2092020-12-15T15:12:30 <ariard> MarcoFalke: agree, 19858 is a good example, it's a PR with a lot of context and you want to avoid wasting review time if your the only one doing a review for the coming month
2102020-12-15T15:12:38 <MarcoFalke> It could be as simple as saying "Concept ACK (willing to upgrade to review ACK)"
2112020-12-15T15:12:38 <ariard> a recent good example
2122020-12-15T15:12:43 <MarcoFalke> #19858
2132020-12-15T15:12:47 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19858 | Periodically make block-relay connections and sync headers by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19858 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2142020-12-15T15:12:51 <jnewbery> MarcoFalke: for myself, if I've concept ACKed a PR, then it almost always means that I intend to review the code later (and would be receptive to the author/maintainer pinging me if I hadn't)
2152020-12-15T15:13:34 <aj> personally, i'm bothered by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20599#issuecomment-741631081 ; my opinion is that we should be thoroughly reviewing all p2p changes because there's potential for interactions, so going easy on "boring" PRs seems very unsafe. beyond that, there's a lot of not very beneficial refactoring PRs, that are also causing extra dev and review rework on PRs that change the
2162020-12-15T15:13:34 <aj> code's behaviour
2172020-12-15T15:13:37 <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: I think we can't assume that generally. Often I say Concept ACK, but I mean "Concept ACK, but I am not confident in reviewing this or I don't have the motivation"
2182020-12-15T15:13:55 *** sr_gi <sr_gi!~sr_gi@80.174.218.168.dyn.user.ono.com> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2192020-12-15T15:14:34 *** sr_gi <sr_gi!~sr_gi@80.174.218.168.dyn.user.ono.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202020-12-15T15:14:56 <MarcoFalke> ariard: Good example. The pull had 4 ACKs at some point, but was merged with less. I think it was a bit unclear to maintainers if more people are interested in testing/reviewing or if the review motivation has been used up already on that pull
2212020-12-15T15:15:40 <ariard> aj: agree and you have to spend a lot of time just to have confidence you have you don't have interactions, even slight ones
2222020-12-15T15:16:25 <ajonas> I think encouraging opinions often and early is the main goal of a concept/approach ACK. People may have varying interest in following up as the PR moves into a lower-level kind of review.
2232020-12-15T15:16:32 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has quit IRC (Quit: Pavlenex)
2242020-12-15T15:16:32 <jnewbery> MarcoFalke: I think that's fair. My default (concept ACK implies a later review ACK and explicitly say "I won't review this later" if you don't intend to review later) is perhaps the opposite from other people.
2252020-12-15T15:16:40 <ariard> I do feel sometimes stack small refactor in bigger PR, even with bigger diff might be actually to review, because less cognitive spreading to reload the code model each time
2262020-12-15T15:17:20 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@2403:6200:8876:cecf:a55b:90cf:1ae1:4d7b> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272020-12-15T15:17:45 <ariard> MarcoFalke: yes I think that's a good initiative for maintainers to ping/engage past reviewers if they're still interested to review again
2282020-12-15T15:18:04 <MarcoFalke> aj: Also a good point. I think it would be easier for maintainers to know how much resistance there is if NACKs or ~mehs were thrown out more agressively
2292020-12-15T15:18:16 <aj> ariard: i think limiting refactors to ones that are immediately useful as part of either implementing a feature, fixing a bug or improving automated tests would be a huge improvement. (or perhaps as followups to a PR that's hit its preserve-acks-no-more-nits limit)
2302020-12-15T15:18:43 <MarcoFalke> I have the feeling that many shy away from a NACK or -0, but that shouldn't be
2312020-12-15T15:18:44 <jonatack> ariard: i agree (and do that) but bigger PRs scare off reviewers and it doesn't always work out. knowing how much to put in a PR and how much to leave out is the hardest part for me TBH
2322020-12-15T15:19:17 <jnewbery> aj: 20599 was thoroughly reviewed. It had 5 ACKs
2332020-12-15T15:19:26 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342020-12-15T15:20:39 <ariard> aj: yes what we might have to weight more carefully is the "immediately" I feel for some features you will have to stack multiple refactors before to have the ground ready for new stuff, e.g mempool
2352020-12-15T15:20:56 <aj> ariard: immediately == different commits in the same PR
2362020-12-15T15:21:15 <aj> ariard: or, like taproot, commits pulled out of a large PR that's already open and available for review
2372020-12-15T15:21:27 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
2382020-12-15T15:21:30 *** miketwen_ <miketwen_!~miketwent@ec2-3-216-176-187.compute-1.amazonaws.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392020-12-15T15:21:36 <ariard> aj: okay but not preparatory-PR-for-some-future-feature, like sdaftuar did for motivating workspace in mempool a back while?
2402020-12-15T15:22:14 <aj> ariard: the package relay stuff? it had a concurrent PR implementing packages via orphans?
2412020-12-15T15:22:54 <ariard> aj: this one https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16400
2422020-12-15T15:23:16 <ariard> which was a substantial diff
2432020-12-15T15:23:21 <aj> ariard: yeah, it had #16401
2442020-12-15T15:23:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16401 | Add package acceptance logic to mempool by sdaftuar · Pull Request #16401 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2452020-12-15T15:23:44 *** mj_node <mj_node!~mj_node@122.0.25.130> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462020-12-15T15:24:12 <ariard> jonatack: yeah I've a preference for a bit more substantial PR but it's so much tied to everyone review workflow
2472020-12-15T15:24:29 <ariard> and past experience with a part of the codebase
2482020-12-15T15:24:29 <jonatack> MarcoFalke: one thing it might be helpful to have signals from maintainers about, is if follow-ups are desired for the review comments that weren't taken or for missing coverage, e.g. 19858 would be an example
2492020-12-15T15:24:52 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2502020-12-15T15:25:00 <jonatack> ariard: yes
2512020-12-15T15:26:22 <ariard> aj: my point is sometimes it can be hard to justify one-individual-refactor but they make sense when you zoom out or point to following PR
2522020-12-15T15:26:41 <ariard> like if we move towards isolating block-relay from tx-relay, it won't happen with one big PR?
2532020-12-15T15:26:43 <MarcoFalke> jonatack: As a maintainer I try to keep those decicions up to the reviewers/other contributors. I don't want to "rule" the project too much.
2542020-12-15T15:26:57 <jonatack> MarcoFalke: that's fair
2552020-12-15T15:27:47 <ariard> jonatack: I do feel we could track follow-ups better, most of the time it's not they're relevant, it's just to much changes for a PR or the PR is already super mature
2562020-12-15T15:27:56 <ariard> GH doesn't have a follow-ups pinning board?
2572020-12-15T15:27:57 <jonatack> ariard: I also like PRs that do things well, even if that makes them more substantial...not sure if I would have said the same a year ago, though
2582020-12-15T15:28:40 <ariard> jonatack: agree to have them strong test coverage, but when it's code style or slight features changes the list of follow-ups might be infinite?
2592020-12-15T15:28:42 <gleb> ariard: explicitly motivating refactors with some future work would help.
2602020-12-15T15:28:48 <aj> ariard: if you can point to a following PR, include the refactor in that PR
2612020-12-15T15:30:36 <ariard> gleb: yes it sounds tied to context-tracking, maybe we could improve it with the wiki? it's widely used to advertise state of the ongoing work around i2p?
2622020-12-15T15:31:21 <jonatack> ariard: yes, in practice i mostly leave it to the PR author to follow-up or not, there are always other priorities to do and review
2632020-12-15T15:31:33 <aj> ariard: isn't creating an issue the obvious thing to do if a PR needs followups and you can't just create the followup PR straight away?
2642020-12-15T15:31:36 <jonatack> that's probably what most do
2652020-12-15T15:31:38 <gleb> ariard: I think even just mentioning it in the first PR comment would help. Wiki stuff may be too much.
2662020-12-15T15:32:57 <ariard> jonatack: right I think it's the job of the reviewer to clearly say when comments are blockers or nice-to-follow-ups
2672020-12-15T15:33:15 <gleb> aj: I think creating issues for follow-ups might be a good idea.
2682020-12-15T15:34:31 <ariard> aj: well GH issue have the concern they're great to discuss but not really to sum up the state of a discussion IMO?
2692020-12-15T15:34:44 *** mj_node <mj_node!~mj_node@122.0.25.130> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
2702020-12-15T15:34:57 <ariard> specially for contributors onboarding on the state of an ongoing work and willingly to participate
2712020-12-15T15:35:38 <jonatack> an issue to centralise the tracking of the effects of 19858 seems like a good idea, for example
2722020-12-15T15:35:39 <aj> ariard: edit the first comment to maintain a summary?
2732020-12-15T15:35:52 <ariard> what people feeling about prepatory document like jamesob did for assumeutxo a while back ?
2742020-12-15T15:35:59 <jonatack> resource usage, peer rotation, the bug aj reported, etc.
2752020-12-15T15:36:22 <jnewbery> I personally wish that we'd not need so many follow-up PRs and just get things right the first time
2762020-12-15T15:36:31 <jonatack> jnewbery: agreed
2772020-12-15T15:37:05 <jnewbery> The attitude of "we know that there are problems with this but we'll merge it now and fix it up later" doesn't seem right for this project
2782020-12-15T15:37:24 <vasild> hi
2792020-12-15T15:37:27 <ariard> jnewbery: ideally but getting the "things right", each contributor has a different opinion because different priorities/concerns?
2802020-12-15T15:37:44 <jamesob> hi
2812020-12-15T15:37:48 <jonatack> jnewbery: that was unique to this project for me, it seems related to the review bottleneck / preservation of review
2822020-12-15T15:38:41 <ariard> aj: yes sound a best practice, and lighter than pinning stuff in wiki
2832020-12-15T15:39:31 <MarcoFalke> I think if something is moving in the wrong direction, we should hold back on merging it, but if there are issues unrelated or tangential to the change that may have existed previously or may be controversial to change, it is up to the pull author to address them or not
2842020-12-15T15:39:51 <jonatack> new people take a long time to become experienced reviewers, and it the meantime the increased activity structurally increases the bottleneck
2852020-12-15T15:41:43 <ariard> that kind of prepatory document: https://github.com/jamesob/assumeutxo-docs/tree/2019-04-proposal/proposal, I think amiti did the same for mempools reworks, and IMO it's pretty cool to get the rational of some proposed changes, including contra opinions
2862020-12-15T15:42:23 <aj> jnewbery: imo review time is the most constrained resource and we should be optimising for it; a big change and a small followup is better than multiple reworks of a big change; likewise having a big change merged quicker, so that it doesn't end up conflicting with other changes, thus requiring further re-review
2872020-12-15T15:43:31 <MarcoFalke> Adding a new commit to a pull that has reviews might better be done in a new pull, because it doesn't invalidate existing review . Though, if one of the commits in the pull is moving in the wrong direction, it might be better to fix it up if everyone agrees.
2882020-12-15T15:43:52 <ariard> MarcoFalke: obviously, if it's introducing flagrant bugs or security concerns we should hold it, but when it's code structure where people have different tolerances harder to come to a consensus...
2892020-12-15T15:44:15 <jnewbery> I think #16702 is a very good example of people saying "let's merge this now and fix in follow-ups". There have been at least 8 PRs to fix up the under-reviewed changes, and there are still outstanding bugs over a year later
2902020-12-15T15:44:18 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16702 | p2p: supplying and using asmap to improve IP bucketing in addrman by naumenkogs · Pull Request #16702 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2912020-12-15T15:44:36 <jonatack> aj: agree, this all relates back to that constraint
2922020-12-15T15:44:44 <jnewbery> That's not saving review time. It would have been much more efficient to just review it properly the first time round
2932020-12-15T15:45:01 <jonatack> so if we can move to loosen it, we can do better in the direction jnewbery is pointing out
2942020-12-15T15:45:54 <gleb> My intuitiion was that follow-ups are often less important than the core part of the PR, that's why focusing on the core part made sense.
2952020-12-15T15:46:49 *** palazzovincenzo <palazzovincenzo!~vincent@93-35-218-68.ip56.fastwebnet.it> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2962020-12-15T15:46:58 <luke-jr> jnewbery: +1
2972020-12-15T15:47:44 <jonatack> i also think that pairing 2 complementary people to work on some PRs together, pre-review, could be beneficial
2982020-12-15T15:48:23 <jonatack> on an ad-hoc, informal basis, but worth exploring
2992020-12-15T15:48:58 <jnewbery> it was under-reviewed and broke peers.dat serialization for two releases. Reviewers and the PR author were urging the maintainers to merge now and fix issues in follow-ups. I don't understand why there was such a rush to get it merged.
3002020-12-15T15:49:03 <vasild> jonatack: +1
3012020-12-15T15:49:24 <ariard> jonatack: +1, specially on the complementarity
3022020-12-15T15:49:47 *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:5809:f8dd:2776:36cd> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3032020-12-15T15:49:53 <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: I also agree, but I think that means that reviewers should be shy in giving out ACKs and comfortable in giving out NACKs
3042020-12-15T15:49:57 <MarcoFalke> Another example is #19569
3052020-12-15T15:50:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19569 | Enable fetching of orphan parents from wtxid peers by sipa · Pull Request #19569 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3062020-12-15T15:50:14 <MarcoFalke> It was ACKed despite a known remote crasher bug
3072020-12-15T15:50:18 <MarcoFalke> (and merged)
3082020-12-15T15:50:24 <luke-jr> surprised explicit feerates hasn't been mentioned XD
3092020-12-15T15:51:08 <aj> MarcoFalke: huh? the remote crasher bug was known before it was merged?
3102020-12-15T15:51:30 <MarcoFalke> aj: Oh it wasn't? Maybe I missed that
3112020-12-15T15:52:02 <MarcoFalke> I presumed it was based on this comment: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19569#discussion_r462887483
3122020-12-15T15:52:08 <ariard> there is also a point when some PRs are approaching the upper bound of review ability like #19988, at least at some point you feel you won't provide anymore review value
3132020-12-15T15:52:11 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19988 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3142020-12-15T15:52:47 <jnewbery> I thought it was possible that there was a remote crash bug, but hadn't identified how to exploit it
3152020-12-15T15:53:16 <aj> MarcoFalke: i thought it was "here's a cleanup we should do in a followup" ... "oops, that cleanup fixes a crash"
3162020-12-15T15:53:24 <jnewbery> I offered a fix to make it safer, and the response was "let's fix it separately"
3172020-12-15T15:53:33 <MarcoFalke> ariard: I think it is still good to review, and maybe clarify that it is a "weaker" review
3182020-12-15T15:54:27 *** davterra <davterra!~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
3192020-12-15T15:54:41 <ariard> jnewbery: when you feel a PR is under-reviewed but still conceptually agree with it, I think a worthy contribution it's to point out the PR doesn't meet project standards on test coverage, code style, documentation and point to good past examples?
3202020-12-15T15:54:53 *** davterra <davterra!~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3212020-12-15T15:54:53 *** kexkey <kexkey!~kexkey@static-198-54-132-174.cust.tzulo.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3222020-12-15T15:55:02 *** davterra <davterra!~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
3232020-12-15T15:55:24 <luke-jr> ariard: by the time it matters, it's merged :/
3242020-12-15T15:55:34 <jnewbery> ariard: those suggestions are often dismissed as 'pointless refactors' or 'nits'
3252020-12-15T15:55:56 <ariard> luke-jr: I mean when the PR isn't merged yet but you don't have the time to review it now but still want to inform about your opinion?
3262020-12-15T15:56:26 <luke-jr> ariard: we'd be posting "this is underreviewed" constantly, because we don't know when some merger might not recognise it?
3272020-12-15T15:57:14 <gleb> It's hard for me to imagine how one can call a suggestion to improve the safety a "pointless refactor". One is a behavior change, the other is not.
3282020-12-15T15:57:23 *** belcher_ <belcher_!~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292020-12-15T15:57:59 <ariard> jnewbery: IMO increasing project standards is something you do over time and not overnight, so yes you might have to constantly make the point until other contributors share them?
3302020-12-15T15:58:01 <vasild> Is anybody interested in discussing I2P connectivity?
3312020-12-15T15:58:44 <jonatack> vasild: sure
3322020-12-15T15:58:48 <ariard> luke-jr: yeah andGH sucks to clearly gather comment or identify ACK/NACKs, it could be its own feature, not regular comments?
3332020-12-15T15:58:51 <jonatack> (after the topic)
3342020-12-15T15:59:00 <vasild> ok, lets discuss after the meeting
3352020-12-15T15:59:25 <MarcoFalke> luke-jr: I think a good metric to see if something is close to merge is to look at the existing ACKs. If there is worry that something gets merged "underreviewed" with ACKs, you best leave a comment saying that
3362020-12-15T16:00:07 <jnewbery> ok, that's time folks
3372020-12-15T16:00:21 <ariard> thanks for participating :)
3382020-12-15T16:00:32 *** belcher <belcher!~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
3392020-12-15T16:00:34 <MarcoFalke> ariard: Thanks for the topic suggestion
3402020-12-15T16:00:47 <jonatack> ariard, you asked yesterday how to qualify if the review bottleneck is improving
3412020-12-15T16:00:48 <jnewbery> Reminder: that was the last p2p meeting this year. We'll meet again on 12-Jan-2021
3422020-12-15T16:01:03 <jnewbery> #endmeeting
3432020-12-15T16:01:03 <core-meetingbot> topic: Bitcoin Core development discussion and commit log | Feel free to watch, but please take commentary and usage questions to #bitcoin | Channel logs: http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/, http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/ | Meeting topics http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt / http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedwalletmeetingtopics.txt
3442020-12-15T16:01:03 <core-meetingbot> Meeting ended Tue Dec 15 16:01:03 2020 UTC.
3452020-12-15T16:01:03 <core-meetingbot> Minutes: https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings/logs/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-12-15-15.01.moin.txt
3462020-12-15T16:01:10 *** Lightlike <Lightlike!b9ff439e@185.255.67.158> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
3472020-12-15T16:01:12 <jonatack> ariard: 2 reasonable rough proxies might be: open issues and pulls, and distribution of funding
3482020-12-15T16:01:17 <luke-jr> MarcoFalke: that might work
3492020-12-15T16:01:59 <jonatack> Open pull requests saw new records during the past year
3502020-12-15T16:02:02 <jonatack> reaching a peak in late May or early June iirc and staying roughly stable at that level since
3512020-12-15T16:02:11 <jonatack> Funding-wise, 2020 was a banner year, and yet at the same time a half-dozen good reviewers faced funding cuts
3522020-12-15T16:02:18 <ariard> jonatack: I'm a bit skeptical sometimes about pure quantiative metrics like "open issues" obviously they're likely a good sign but doesn't indicate if the underlying discussion are better, sane, productive, ...
3532020-12-15T16:02:33 <vasild> https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0/r/month/2020/12/1?cid=MTFwcXZkZ3BkOTlubGliZjliYTg2MXZ1OHNAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ -- shows p2p meeting on Dec 29
3542020-12-15T16:02:44 <vasild> (I can't edit it)
3552020-12-15T16:02:53 <jonatack> ariard: yes, that's why i use the word proxies, but we don't have anything easy that is better
3562020-12-15T16:02:58 <ariard> jonatack: it's super hard and I'm still too much a newcomer to say "it was better/worse" before :)
3572020-12-15T16:03:04 <jonatack> An informal, very simple, one question twitter poll about the situation is still open here for a few more hours
3582020-12-15T16:03:10 <jonatack> https://twitter.com/jonatack/status/1338614214294966279
3592020-12-15T16:03:19 <jonatack> ariard: yes, I can't say if experienced and consistent review/testing are decreasing
3602020-12-15T16:03:28 <jonatack> or are steady or increasing but just not keeping up with the increased activity
3612020-12-15T16:03:44 <luke-jr> FWIW, I think the number of upstream bugs I find rebasing Knots has been increasing
3622020-12-15T16:04:09 <jonatack> It takes time to develop experienced reviewers on this project
3632020-12-15T16:04:19 <luke-jr> but it's not something I actively try to count, and perception is hard
3642020-12-15T16:04:23 <jonatack> so structurally it makes sense that more people participating
3652020-12-15T16:04:28 <jonatack> would initially cause a review crunch
3662020-12-15T16:04:40 <jonatack> though testing, on the other hand, can be done by relatively new people
3672020-12-15T16:04:48 <ariard> luke-jr: that's not good sign for sure
3682020-12-15T16:05:00 <luke-jr> jonatack: review, even though perhaps not experienced, is also a good way for newcomers to learn
3692020-12-15T16:05:04 <jonatack> so, there may to be a misalignment of incentives
3702020-12-15T16:05:15 <jonatack> that encourages people to not spend too much time reviewing and testing
3712020-12-15T16:05:23 <jonatack> e.g. I think most would agree that commits/merges, research, mailing list posts, and interviews/podcasts/outreach are more newsworthy and garner far more accolades than review and testing
3722020-12-15T16:05:35 <ariard> I agree you don't have to be experienced to review, and the review you're doing as a newcomer are likely to be really different and complementary
3732020-12-15T16:05:36 <jonatack> It's also fair to say that, with a few exceptions, new funding principally goes to those with specific project proposals
3742020-12-15T16:05:47 <jonatack> projects which are, naturally, prioritized by the grantees over reviewing and testing, as they will be evaluated on them
3752020-12-15T16:05:57 <jonatack> If then, funding, fame and glory donât generally go to new people doing review and testing...
3762020-12-15T16:06:06 <jonatack> it may be fair to say that incentives are not really aligned if it is a bottleneck and we need more of it.
3772020-12-15T16:06:16 <MarcoFalke> I think review can also be done by new people. Obvioulsy they need more time to reach the same conclusions, but the only precondition is to have a working brain and common sense. It is not like anyone is born with a review badge on your shoulder.
3782020-12-15T16:06:19 <MarcoFalke> *their
3792020-12-15T16:06:49 <jonatack> Are review and testing then somewhat altruistic, partly done for swapping favors and keeping promises, and partly done for the greater good?
3802020-12-15T16:06:54 <jonatack> Is there, like open source software, an element of tragedy of the commons?
3812020-12-15T16:07:00 <jonatack> If yes to any of the above, I suppose it makes perfect sense if it remains the bottleneck...
3822020-12-15T16:07:03 <jonatack> ...and a bit like sex: more talk than actually doing it!
3832020-12-15T16:07:10 <jonatack> fin
3842020-12-15T16:07:19 <luke-jr> jonatack: one way to make funding help in this area might be to have it based on bug bounties instead ofsimple grants
3852020-12-15T16:07:34 <ariard> jonatack: agree on the newsworthy thing, bitcoin medias don't talk about a great ongoing review but maybe we should keep educating them?
3862020-12-15T16:07:41 <luke-jr> eg, reward people for finding concrete bugs in either merged or PR code
3872020-12-15T16:08:17 *** joelklabo <joelklabo!~textual@108-196-216-127.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3882020-12-15T16:08:23 <luke-jr> (this probably has other downsides ofc, like higher overhead)
3892020-12-15T16:11:40 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d <da39a3ee5e6b4b0d!~da39a3ee5@2403:6200:8876:cecf:a55b:90cf:1ae1:4d7b> has quit IRC (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
3902020-12-15T16:13:03 *** davterra <davterra!~davterra@107.182.237.18> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3912020-12-15T16:15:00 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3922020-12-15T16:15:00 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f1f2418433c9...70150824dc2c
3932020-12-15T16:15:00 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8c09c0c practicalswift: fuzz: Avoid time-based "non-determinism" in fuzzing harnesses by using moc...
3942020-12-15T16:15:01 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7015082 MarcoFalke: Merge #20437: fuzz: Avoid time-based "non-determinism" in fuzzing harnesse...
3952020-12-15T16:15:02 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3962020-12-15T16:15:20 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3972020-12-15T16:15:20 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #20437: fuzz: Avoid time-based "non-determinism" in fuzzing harnesses by using mocked GetTime() (master...fuzzers-remove-time-based-non-determinism) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20437
3982020-12-15T16:15:21 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3992020-12-15T16:16:47 <jamesob> Hey maintainers, the latest AU PR has 3 solid ACKs. Might be worth a look? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19806
4002020-12-15T16:18:19 *** joelklabo <joelklabo!~textual@108-196-216-127.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
4012020-12-15T16:32:26 <wumpus> jamesob:will take a look, thanks
4022020-12-15T16:33:59 <wumpus> jamesob: the commment about avoiding asserts with side effects probably needs to be addressed
4032020-12-15T16:37:52 *** joelklabo <joelklabo!~textual@108-196-216-127.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4042020-12-15T16:38:23 *** palazzovincenzo <palazzovincenzo!~vincent@93-35-218-68.ip56.fastwebnet.it> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
4052020-12-15T16:38:35 *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:5809:f8dd:2776:36cd> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4062020-12-15T16:39:14 *** jeremyrubin <jeremyrubin!~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4072020-12-15T16:41:01 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4082020-12-15T16:41:19 *** provoostenator <provoostenator!~quassel@provoostenator.sprovoost.nl> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
4092020-12-15T16:41:25 <jamesob> wumpus: cool, willfix
4102020-12-15T16:42:32 *** provoostenator <provoostenator!~quassel@provoostenator.sprovoost.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4112020-12-15T16:43:47 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
4122020-12-15T16:47:11 *** joelklabo <joelklabo!~textual@108-196-216-127.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
4132020-12-15T16:53:16 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4142020-12-15T16:53:16 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/70150824dc2c...ec6149c01e6d
4152020-12-15T16:53:17 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f7264ff Lucas Ontivero: Check if Cjdns address is valid
4162020-12-15T16:53:17 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ec6149c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20616: Check CJDNS address is valid
4172020-12-15T16:53:24 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4182020-12-15T16:53:41 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4192020-12-15T16:53:41 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20616: Check CJDNS address is valid (master...validate-cjdns-addresses) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20616
4202020-12-15T16:53:42 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4212020-12-15T16:55:39 <andytoshi> jnewbery: oh, good idea about just waiting on listunspent (or even getbalance)
4222020-12-15T16:57:04 <jnewbery> I was originally going to suggest getbalance, but I thought listunspent would allow you to wait for the exact block, and you might not know exactly what balance you're waiting for
4232020-12-15T16:57:24 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4242020-12-15T16:57:25 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #20525: Init script for debian/ubuntu (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20525
4252020-12-15T16:57:25 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4262020-12-15T16:58:14 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4272020-12-15T16:58:41 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
4282020-12-15T16:59:09 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4292020-12-15T16:59:10 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ec6149c01e6d...a35a3466efd1
4302020-12-15T16:59:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa86217 MarcoFalke: doc: Move add relay comment in net to correct place
4312020-12-15T16:59:12 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a35a346 MarcoFalke: Merge #20653: doc: Move addr relay comment in net to correct place
4322020-12-15T16:59:14 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4332020-12-15T16:59:31 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4342020-12-15T16:59:31 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #20653: doc: Move addr relay comment in net to correct place (master...2012-docNetAddrRelay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20653
4352020-12-15T16:59:32 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4362020-12-15T17:08:38 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372020-12-15T17:08:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #20661: Only relay torv3 addresses to addrv2-capable peers (master...202012_torv2_relay_only_addrv2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20661
4382020-12-15T17:08:38 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.108> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4392020-12-15T17:08:39 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4402020-12-15T17:09:39 *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4412020-12-15T17:25:00 *** joelklabo <joelklabo!~textual@108-196-216-127.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4422020-12-15T17:29:48 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4432020-12-15T17:39:23 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4442020-12-15T17:39:23 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] lontivero opened pull request #20662: Allow setting I2P addresses (master...set-i2p) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20662
4452020-12-15T17:39:24 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4462020-12-15T17:40:34 *** eagless <eagless!~eagless@nova-153-092-149-207.cpe.nova.is> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4472020-12-15T17:45:31 *** guest534543 <guest534543!~mix@141.98.103.84> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4482020-12-15T17:48:49 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.108> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
4492020-12-15T17:50:26 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.124> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4502020-12-15T17:51:25 *** az0re <az0re!~az0re@gateway/tor-sasl/az0re> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4512020-12-15T17:53:16 *** guest534543 <guest534543!~mix@141.98.103.84> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
4522020-12-15T18:00:33 *** jb55 <jb55!~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4532020-12-15T18:03:29 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4542020-12-15T18:03:30 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a35a3466efd1...8bb40d5f56c8
4552020-12-15T18:03:30 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 44444ba MarcoFalke: fuzz: Link all targets once
4562020-12-15T18:03:31 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa13e1b MarcoFalke: build: Add option --enable-danger-fuzz-link-all
4572020-12-15T18:03:31 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8bb40d5 MarcoFalke: Merge #20560: fuzz: Link all targets once
4582020-12-15T18:03:33 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4592020-12-15T18:03:40 <jonatack> luke-jr: sure, istm grants are essential, and donations and bounties might be complementary (if they can surmount the overhead) but probably aren't enough on their own for what needs to be done and for developer sustainability.
4602020-12-15T18:03:49 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4612020-12-15T18:03:49 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #20560: fuzz: Link all targets once (master...2012-fuzzLinkOnce) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20560
4622020-12-15T18:03:50 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4632020-12-15T18:06:49 *** davterra <davterra!~davterra@107.182.237.18> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
4642020-12-15T18:07:10 <luke-jr> jonatack: istm?
4652020-12-15T18:07:26 <wumpus> provoostenator: i'm still not able to connect to your onionv3 signet seed :/
4662020-12-15T18:08:08 <wumpus> nice, back to one fuzz target
4672020-12-15T18:08:36 <jonatack> luke-jr: "it seems to me"
4682020-12-15T18:09:04 <jonatack> luke-jr: heh yes, it could have been read as a type of grant
4692020-12-15T18:09:34 <luke-jr> jonatack: depends on what the bug bounty amounts are, but sure
4702020-12-15T18:21:04 *** spake <spake!~spake@178.162.209.171> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
4712020-12-15T18:21:06 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4722020-12-15T18:21:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #20663: fuzz: Leave script_assets_test_minimizer unregistered (master...2012-fuzzNoReg) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20663
4732020-12-15T18:21:06 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4742020-12-15T18:21:12 *** sgeisler <sgeisler!sid356034@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lsbztgetyjllqsza> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4752020-12-15T18:24:42 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4762020-12-15T18:24:42 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] lontivero closed pull request #20662: Allow setting I2P addresses (master...set-i2p) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20662
4772020-12-15T18:24:43 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4782020-12-15T18:29:36 *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@p200300c7ef22170074211917a47a8485.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4792020-12-15T18:33:45 *** belcher_ is now known as belcher
4802020-12-15T18:39:01 *** alex66 <alex66!ae3b1d20@c-174-59-29-32.hsd1.pa.comcast.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4812020-12-15T18:39:39 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4822020-12-15T18:39:39 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] lontivero reopened pull request #20662: Allow setting I2P addresses (master...set-i2p) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20662
4832020-12-15T18:39:40 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4842020-12-15T18:43:58 *** alex66 <alex66!ae3b1d20@c-174-59-29-32.hsd1.pa.comcast.net> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
4852020-12-15T18:45:13 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has quit IRC (Quit: Pavlenex)
4862020-12-15T19:02:18 *** davterra <davterra!~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4872020-12-15T19:02:36 *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
4882020-12-15T19:03:13 *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4892020-12-15T19:06:59 <belcher> where did the github-merge.py script go? is there an alternative used now
4902020-12-15T19:07:50 <harding> belcher: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools/blob/master/github-merge.py it just changes repos
4912020-12-15T19:07:58 <belcher> ty
4922020-12-15T19:08:01 <harding> changed *
4932020-12-15T19:08:06 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4942020-12-15T19:09:57 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
4952020-12-15T19:10:20 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4962020-12-15T19:11:53 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
4972020-12-15T19:17:44 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.124> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
4982020-12-15T19:21:25 *** tryphe_ <tryphe_!~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4992020-12-15T19:21:26 *** tryphe <tryphe!~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
5002020-12-15T19:27:46 *** jeremyb <jeremyb!~jeremyb@84.39.117.57> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5012020-12-15T19:30:21 <wumpus> yep
5022020-12-15T19:37:32 *** guaj0 <guaj0!~guaj0@231.red-95-120-196.dynamicip.rima-tde.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5032020-12-15T19:40:57 *** dviola <dviola!~diego@unaffiliated/dviola> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5042020-12-15T19:41:14 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5052020-12-15T19:41:14 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #20664: Add scanblockfilters RPC call (master...2020/12/filterblocks_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20664
5062020-12-15T19:41:26 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5072020-12-15T19:44:40 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5082020-12-15T19:44:40 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gruve-p opened pull request #20665: Build: update clang patch url and hash (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20665
5092020-12-15T19:44:41 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5102020-12-15T19:46:03 <dhruvm> CI re-run please? https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5858449189765120
5112020-12-15T19:47:47 <sipa> dhruvm: done
5122020-12-15T19:53:43 *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
5132020-12-15T19:54:16 *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5142020-12-15T20:00:13 *** justanotheruser <justanotheruser!~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
5152020-12-15T20:02:09 <dhruvm> ððð½
5162020-12-15T20:02:10 *** joelklabo <joelklabo!~textual@108-196-216-127.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has quit IRC (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
5172020-12-15T20:03:30 <provoostenator> wumpus: it's the same machine that I use for DNS seed crawling. Perhaps its incessant hammering of the Tor network is causing the flakiness.
5182020-12-15T20:03:43 <provoostenator> I might move the Signet seed node elsewhere.
5192020-12-15T20:05:18 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.124> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5202020-12-15T20:07:32 <provoostenator> Indeed curling the blockstream explorer v3 URL is also unresponsive.
5212020-12-15T20:07:39 <provoostenator> (from that machine)
5222020-12-15T20:08:19 *** guaj0 <guaj0!~guaj0@231.red-95-120-196.dynamicip.rima-tde.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
5232020-12-15T20:12:18 <dhruvm> jonatack: Your comment about grant-seekers prioritizing projects over testing/review sounds right. One potential way to affect change: Core devs could get together and let it be known that they will give letters of recommendation for grant committees and will overweight review and testing.
5242020-12-15T20:18:14 *** Eagle[TM] <Eagle[TM]!~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5252020-12-15T20:20:38 *** provoostenator <provoostenator!~quassel@provoostenator.sprovoost.nl> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
5262020-12-15T20:20:51 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5272020-12-15T20:21:25 *** EagleTM <EagleTM!~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
5282020-12-15T20:21:50 *** provoostenator <provoostenator!~quassel@provoostenator.sprovoost.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5292020-12-15T20:22:09 *** justanotheruser <justanotheruser!~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5302020-12-15T20:31:54 <wumpus> provoostenator: i've seen this problem as well with more or less busy tor services, usually restarting the daemon works, at least for a while
5312020-12-15T20:32:13 <provoostenator> I just moved it to a different machine, it should be reachable now
5322020-12-15T20:32:19 <wumpus> oh it succeeds now !
5332020-12-15T20:33:45 <provoostenator> Hopefully it stays that way. This new machine doesn't do antying tor-intensive.
5342020-12-15T20:39:20 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5352020-12-15T20:39:20 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8bb40d5f56c8...d9a4738c9d3d
5362020-12-15T20:39:21 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3e6657a Sjors Provoost: Move signet onion seed from v2 to v3
5372020-12-15T20:39:21 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d9a4738 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20660: Move signet onion seed from v2 to v3
5382020-12-15T20:39:32 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5392020-12-15T20:39:45 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5402020-12-15T20:39:45 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20660: Move signet onion seed from v2 to v3 (master...2020/12/signet-v3-onion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20660
5412020-12-15T20:39:56 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5422020-12-15T20:43:55 *** justanotheruser <justanotheruser!~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
5432020-12-15T20:45:26 <wumpus> one less v2 onion in the source code :)
5442020-12-15T20:46:09 <sipa> peeling them off, one by one
5452020-12-15T20:46:42 <wumpus> yess
5462020-12-15T20:50:23 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5472020-12-15T20:50:23 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d9a4738c9d3d...c434e2cca918
5482020-12-15T20:50:23 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faf2c6e MarcoFalke: cirrus: Schedule one task with paid credits for faster CI feedback
5492020-12-15T20:50:24 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c434e2c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20615: cirrus: Schedule one task with paid credits for faster CI fe...
5502020-12-15T20:50:25 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5512020-12-15T20:50:37 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5522020-12-15T20:50:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20615: cirrus: Schedule one task with paid credits for faster CI feedback (master...2012-ciFasterFeedback) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20615
5532020-12-15T20:50:39 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5542020-12-15T20:53:00 *** Pavlenex <Pavlenex!~Thunderbi@185.103.110.235> has quit IRC (Quit: Pavlenex)
5552020-12-15T20:56:40 *** lontivero <lontivero!~lontivero@186.183.3.236> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
5562020-12-15T20:56:41 *** az0re <az0re!~az0re@gateway/tor-sasl/az0re> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
5572020-12-15T21:00:17 *** proofofkeags <proofofkeags!~proofofke@174-16-212-53.hlrn.qwest.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5582020-12-15T21:05:59 <jonatack> dhruvm: sure, sgtm. partly i reckon that even when grantors eyes don't glaze over at the importance of review & testing (and understanding of that does indeed seem to be improving from what I hear), evaluating grantee performance on that remains a challenge for them as they have to rely on peer feedback. It might be a bit easier for them to evaluate the delivery of a specific project, and
5592020-12-15T21:06:01 <jonatack> to sell/market it internally to stakeholders to justify continued open source grant funding.
5602020-12-15T21:12:09 <jonatack> dhruvm: that said, it's only speculation on my part. my grantor specifically asked that i keep reviewing if supported--they get it.
5612020-12-15T21:14:23 <wumpus> even if the eventual goal is do deliver a project, reviewing other people's changes (especially to the part of the code which is their interest) will likely make them a better contributor in the first place
5622020-12-15T21:14:38 <jonatack> yess
5632020-12-15T21:16:57 *** joelklabo <joelklabo!~textual@108-196-216-127.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5642020-12-15T21:33:26 <dhruvm> yeah - so the core of the issue is that it's hard for the grantors to evaluate performance. that is something core devs can develop a system around?
5652020-12-15T21:34:55 <dhruvm> kinda like peer performance reviews at companies
5662020-12-15T21:35:55 <dhruvm> they face similar challenges with hiring for example. engineers don't like interviewing but it is crucial in a fast growth situation.
5672020-12-15T21:36:42 *** davterra <davterra!~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
5682020-12-15T21:38:00 <dhruvm> i've had jobs where contribution to hiring was as important as new launches for those reviews
5692020-12-15T21:38:43 *** Chris_Stewart_5 <Chris_Stewart_5!~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5702020-12-15T21:41:49 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5712020-12-15T21:44:12 <jonatack> dhruvm: hiring: yes, in my previous life i sometimes brought the dev team for the 6-12 month long projects, every project was like a band reunion
5722020-12-15T21:45:04 *** miketwen_ <miketwen_!~miketwent@ec2-3-216-176-187.compute-1.amazonaws.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
5732020-12-15T21:45:09 <jonatack> dhruvm: evaluation does seem to be a key issue, and there are some initiatives afoot to work on this
5742020-12-15T21:47:06 *** Kiminuo <Kiminuo!~mix@141.98.103.124> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
5752020-12-15T21:47:24 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5762020-12-15T21:47:25 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c434e2cca918...dff0f6f753ea
5772020-12-15T21:47:26 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fade619 MarcoFalke: Move TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION to policy
5782020-12-15T21:47:26 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dff0f6f Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20611: Move TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION to policy
5792020-12-15T21:47:28 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5802020-12-15T21:47:44 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5812020-12-15T21:47:45 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20611: Move TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION to policy (master...2012-mvTxStandardVersion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20611
5822020-12-15T21:47:45 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5832020-12-15T21:51:19 *** guaj0 <guaj0!~guaj0@31.221.210.108> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5842020-12-15T21:57:22 *** Emcy <Emcy!~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
5852020-12-15T21:58:18 *** Emcy <Emcy!~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5862020-12-15T21:58:40 *** peterrizzo_ <peterrizzo_!~peterrizz@ool-44c18924.dyn.optonline.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5872020-12-15T22:17:48 *** miketwen_ <miketwen_!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5882020-12-15T22:18:37 *** jonatack <jonatack!~jon@88.124.242.136> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
5892020-12-15T22:19:02 *** jonatack <jonatack!~jon@213.152.162.99> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5902020-12-15T22:21:05 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
5912020-12-15T22:23:16 *** miketwen_ <miketwen_!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
5922020-12-15T22:23:41 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5932020-12-15T22:23:41 <bitcoin-git> [gui] luke-jr opened pull request #153: GUI: Define MAX_DIGITS_BTC for magic number in BitcoinUnits::format (master...const_max_digits) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/153
5942020-12-15T22:23:42 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5952020-12-15T22:25:20 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5962020-12-15T22:32:47 *** guaj0 <guaj0!~guaj0@31.221.210.108> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
5972020-12-15T22:45:13 *** flag <flag!~flag@net-93-66-71-105.cust.vodafonedsl.it> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
5982020-12-15T22:46:23 *** rex4539 <rex4539!~rex4539@8.40.29.10> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5992020-12-15T22:48:05 *** miketwenty1 <miketwenty1!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
6002020-12-15T22:48:11 *** miketwen_ <miketwen_!~miketwent@136.55.84.49> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6012020-12-15T22:50:29 *** rex4539 <rex4539!~rex4539@8.40.29.10> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
6022020-12-15T22:52:51 *** davterra <davterra!~davterra@107.182.237.19> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6032020-12-15T22:56:31 *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl> has quit IRC (Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com))
6042020-12-15T22:57:08 *** flag <flag!~flag@net-93-66-71-105.cust.vodafonedsl.it> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6052020-12-15T22:58:10 *** guaj0 <guaj0!~guaj0@231.red-95-120-196.dynamicip.rima-tde.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6062020-12-15T23:01:35 *** guaj0 <guaj0!~guaj0@231.red-95-120-196.dynamicip.rima-tde.net> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
6072020-12-15T23:28:02 *** Asbestos_Vapor <Asbestos_Vapor!~Mercury_V@174-082-166-092.res.spectrum.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
6082020-12-15T23:39:06 *** instagibbs <instagibbs!~greg@061093103011.ctinets.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6092020-12-15T23:44:15 <instagibbs> apologies if this gets double-posted, my irc setup being wonky: I can say from a bit of experience in the "grant business" that there is a lot of pressure(rightly so) to not influence "what" a person is working on, and that "inability to evaluate a reviewer" has not been a reason to deny grants(IIRC no one actually applied where their top line was "review"). in other words, if someone wants to get a grant to do review, they have to
6102020-12-15T23:44:15 <instagibbs> submit an application :)
6112020-12-15T23:44:49 <instagibbs> if we have a dearth of review because of *funding* this is fixable. I suspect not.
6122020-12-15T23:45:51 <instagibbs> s/fixable/easily fixable/
6132020-12-15T23:46:01 <luke-jr> instagibbs: â¦
6142020-12-15T23:46:29 <instagibbs> luke-jr, !!!
6152020-12-15T23:46:56 <luke-jr> instagibbs: well, it might not add review, but it could keep from losing my reviewing if I got funding <.<
6162020-12-15T23:47:46 <luke-jr> I hate saying it like that, but I can't keep doing this unfunded forever XD
6172020-12-15T23:47:55 <instagibbs> (Can only speak to the one grant program I'm involved in)
6182020-12-15T23:48:35 <instagibbs> I suspect in general it's "we need to motivate coders to become reviewers" and "we need new contributors"
6192020-12-15T23:49:07 <instagibbs> Also, people can still bug me for review, I'm not on IRC much anymore(life stuff) but if you bug me via email I will likely do it :)
6202020-12-15T23:49:10 <luke-jr> yes, I suspect that's part of it
6212020-12-15T23:50:03 *** vasild <vasild!~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
6222020-12-15T23:56:02 *** palazzovincenzo <palazzovincenzo!~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:5809:f8dd:2776:36cd> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6232020-12-15T23:56:52 *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:5809:f8dd:2776:36cd> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
6242020-12-15T23:58:50 *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincent@93-35-218-68.ip56.fastwebnet.it> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev