19:00:10 <wumpus> #startmeeting
19:00:10 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 19 19:00:10 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:10 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:14 <Chris_Stewart_5> ello
19:00:23 <MarcoFalke> cfields: If you need the gitian log for the failing build: https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/nightlybuilds/2017-01-19/build-win.log
19:00:44 <cfields> MarcoFalke: ah, didn't realize gitian was actually failing. Thanks.
19:00:47 <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 instagibbs
19:00:54 <morcos> here
19:00:58 <CodeShark> Hi
19:01:11 <instagibbs> prezent
19:01:19 <MarcoFalke> topics?
19:01:20 <jtimon> here
19:01:27 <morcos> suggested topic #9583 and #9584
19:01:28 <wumpus> topic: last-minute merges before feature freeze
19:01:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9583 | Move wallet callbacks into cs_main (this effectively reverts #7946) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:01:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:01:35 <instagibbs> Last stuff to shove in before freeze naturally...
19:01:38 <kanzure> hi.
19:01:57 <jonasschnelli> I guess https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 is ready...
19:02:02 * btcdrak is half here
19:02:13 <gmaxwell> #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
19:02:19 <sipa> any 0.14 milestoned PRs that we don't expect are reasonable to make it?
19:02:27 <jtimon> suggested topic, what's missing to branch 0.14
19:02:28 <BlueMatt> #9535 got thourough review from jtimon (and others) and is a big win
19:02:28 <wumpus> do we all agree 9294 is ready?
19:02:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:02:39 <instagibbs> any multiwallet stuff isn't going to make it I assume
19:02:46 <BlueMatt> i like 9294, but i think it needs another review
19:02:53 <wumpus> multiwallet was already untagged
19:02:54 <BlueMatt> I'm ok with merge as long as one or two folks give it a postumous ack
19:03:05 <sipa> i have not reviewed 9294, sorry
19:03:12 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/21
19:03:14 <sipa> (but i plan to, whether it's merged or not)
19:03:36 <jonasschnelli> we can always fix issues after the freeze
19:03:40 <instagibbs> I could give it an updated review, but not sure if that's enough
19:03:43 <luke-jr> there's a pre-MW PR that's probably ready, but not a prioirty
19:04:02 <sipa> pre-mimblewimble?
19:04:06 <jonasschnelli> heh
19:04:08 <gmaxwell> I think #9526 should be dropped from that. (perhaps we should do something later, but it shouldn't be tagged #14)
19:04:08 <luke-jr> multiwallet ;)
19:04:09 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9526 | -blocksonly should disable sharing of mempool with dbcache · Issue #9526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:04:10 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14 | bitcoin: URI and/or bitcoin-request MIME type for click-to-pay · Issue #14 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:04:36 <btcdrak> issue #14 ?
19:04:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14 | bitcoin: URI and/or bitcoin-request MIME type for click-to-pay · Issue #14 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:04:41 <BlueMatt> I'd consider 9526 is a bugfix, but i guess i dont care strongly either way
19:04:47 <luke-jr> #8775 specifically
19:04:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8775 | RPC refactoring: Access wallet using new GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest by luke-jr · Pull Request #8775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:04:50 <sipa> i think 9526 is a bugfix
19:04:59 <luke-jr> but it seems it conflicted again, so I guess less than ready anyway :x
19:05:51 <BlueMatt> ok, so to conclude, #9461 and #9294 - 9461 i think is ready-ish (one more look-over, please, its easy?), and 9294 I think we should merge with a few commitments to postumous reviews
19:05:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:05:56 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:37 <jtimon> I generally dislike that we fork the branch knowing that some fix will be needed in both branches in advance
19:06:40 <BlueMatt> 9377 we agreed previously was bugfix, and 9526, if we merge it for 14, i'd call a bugfix
19:07:04 <MarcoFalke> jtimon: There won't be a branch today
19:07:09 <BlueMatt> jtimon: no, we branch in 2 weeks
19:07:19 <MarcoFalke> We still have next week to fix bugs
19:07:22 <jtimon> the whole "we can merge it after fork, because it's a bugfix" concept
19:07:37 <sipa> the fork is only in 2 weeks
19:07:37 <wumpus> who is talking about a fork?
19:07:45 <sipa> bugfixes can go in in between
19:07:53 <wumpus> bugfixes can be merged, by definition, after the feature freeze
19:07:57 <jtimon> oh, I see, just mean 0.14 git fork, ie just branching
19:07:59 <wumpus> because it's a feature freeze nto a bug fix freeze
19:08:12 <jonasschnelli> Yes. And technically 9294 is kind-of-a-fix for the missed HD chain split in 0.13. And there are no things to fix... only stuff to improve
19:08:24 <sipa> jtimon: today (or whenever we decide) is the feature freeze. the actual 0.14 branch is only created in 2 weeks
19:08:29 <BlueMatt> 9294 has string changes, so must be today or not at all
19:08:34 <wumpus> the branch is created at rc1 time
19:08:54 <jtimon> sipa: thanks I mixed feature freeze with branching
19:08:56 <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: Yes. I'm happy to merge it without the Consensus::Params::nPowTargetTimespan change
19:08:56 <wumpus> (so that releases happen from a branch, not from master)
19:09:06 <jonasschnelli> If no objections...
19:09:12 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: open a new pr for that change, and then merge it, I'd say
19:09:25 <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: Agree
19:09:25 <BlueMatt> (merge the one without the Consensus::Params thing, then open a pr to change it)
19:09:29 <jonasschnelli> Okay.
19:09:34 <jtimon> so ideally all the bugfixes we know will be merged before branching, forget about my previous comment then
19:09:50 <morcos> I apologize for not reviewing 9294, but i feel like i never got up to speed enough with the code in question.  I do thik that although it's not critical and isn't already tagged 0.14, #9535 could be merged now and i know cfields wants it too
19:09:52 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:10:11 <bitcoin-git> [13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2ef52d3cf11b...b25068697fdb
19:10:11 <bitcoin-git> 13bitcoin/06master 1440ec7c7 15Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding
19:10:12 <bitcoin-git> 13bitcoin/06master 14b250686 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #9461: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding...
19:10:17 <wumpus> all the bugfixes we know and can realistically make the release (or are critical enough to delay it) should be merged before rc1, yes, thus before the branch
19:10:18 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: multiwallet pains me. because darn, such a simple set of changes remaining.  we need to get out of this mode where all the intensity is in the week before feature freeze. :P  (maybe new major version every month. :P )
19:10:20 <sipa> i think 9525 is pretty trivial
19:10:26 <bitcoin-git> [13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #9461: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding (06master...062017/01/qt_sync) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9461
19:10:35 <sipa> eh, 9535
19:11:22 <wumpus> all the intensity isn't in the week before feature freeze, we've merged tons of stuff in the last months
19:11:29 <morcos> it's got enough ack's are there any objections to 9535 sipa?
19:11:33 <luke-jr> it's okay
19:11:47 <BlueMatt> sipa: ok, so press the button? I'd call jtimon's review pretty thourough (even ignoring all the lock testing I plan on doing in the next 2 weeks)
19:11:53 <wumpus> and some things won't make a release, that's okay
19:12:45 <jtimon> BlueMatt: I wouldn't call it complete, but I noted the parts I did not do
19:12:46 <wumpus> priority for 0.14 is solving the nasty remaining issues, like the wallet sync problems
19:12:46 <BlueMatt> ok, so we need to figure out what to do about #9294, does anyone have any objections to merging so that we can freeze and getting postumous acks?
19:12:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:12:56 <morcos> assuming someone is about to press merge on 9535, the only open question is do we hold off the feature freeze for 9294  (what he said)
19:13:05 <BlueMatt> wumpus: next topic...lets finalize list of things for freeze today first :p
19:13:41 <wumpus> BlueMatt: I agree with the two you mentioned
19:14:01 <cfields> i'm afraid i'm unable to provide meaningful review on 9294. I had a few nits that weren't worth pointing out, but nothing else
19:14:02 <wumpus> #9461 and #9294
19:14:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:14:07 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:14:22 <sipa> what about #9519 and #9377. are those bugfixes?
19:14:24 <jonasschnelli> 9461 is merged
19:14:25 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9519 | Exclude RBF replacement txs from fee estimation by morcos · Pull Request #9519 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:14:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9377 | fundrawtransaction: Keep change-output keys by default, make it optional by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9377 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:14:35 <BlueMatt> sipa: yes, bugfixes with no translation string changes
19:14:47 <sipa> ok
19:14:48 <morcos> 9519 is a bugfix and it's extremely simple
19:14:50 <BlueMatt> (if we decide to merge them, I'm confident in calling both bugfixes)
19:14:55 * jonasschnelli going to rebase 9377
19:15:18 <jtimon> cfields: same for me, I just did concept aCK for #9294
19:15:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:15:34 <instagibbs> If it helps hd split get in, I promise a tACK after the fact
19:16:07 <cfields> sipa: do you plan on needing to change any behavior or meaning of any options for #9526?
19:16:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9526 | -blocksonly should disable sharing of mempool with dbcache · Issue #9526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:16:17 <wumpus> ok that leaves #9294 then, let's all review that
19:16:20 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:16:28 <BlueMatt> ok, so acks on the following for today: hd split (9294), net lock split (9535)
19:16:29 <wumpus> #action review #9294 asap so it can still make the cut
19:16:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:16:44 <BlueMatt> then we can move on to next topic
19:17:29 <jonasschnelli> Should we touch/chat about the wallet sync issue? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9583
19:17:32 <BlueMatt> ok, next topic: wallet inconsistency (revert #7946 for 0.14 is pr 9583), see issue #9584 and #9148
19:17:34 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7946 | Reduce cs_main locks during ConnectTip/SyncWithWallets by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:34 <BlueMatt> ?
19:17:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9148 | Wallet RPCs can return stale info due to ProcessNewBlock Race · Issue #9148 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:44 <wumpus> #topic #9583 and #9584 (morcos)
19:17:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9583 | Move wallet callbacks into cs_main (this effectively reverts #7946) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:47 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:18:11 <morcos> gmaxwell: please make sure you see this so you don't complain later that you didn't realize we were sticking everything back into cs_main again
19:18:12 <jonasschnelli> I apologise for 7946,... I wasn't aware that this could cause sync issues
19:18:26 <wumpus> I tagged 9535 for 0.14 (I uess that's the intent?)
19:18:39 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: ehh, nbd, thats why it was early in a release cycle...sadly no one fixed it before now :(
19:18:47 <morcos> wumpus: yes or just merge. i think its ready, but not sure why it hasn't been
19:18:48 <BlueMatt> turns out there is complicated machinery to fix it, eg #9570
19:18:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9570 | Block Wallet RPCs until wallet is synced to our current chain by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9570 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:18:50 <BlueMatt> but like x2
19:19:10 <BlueMatt> I'm working on a version of it, but I really dont like that much change this late in cycle
19:19:25 <BlueMatt> so hopefully we can get the changes in super early in 0.15, and get lots of eyes on it through that cylc
19:19:26 <BlueMatt> e
19:19:31 <BlueMatt> ^ this is my recommendation
19:19:39 <wumpus> morcos: well it's not tagged for 0.14, so it has been hidden for me as that's what I've been focusing on
19:19:40 <BlueMatt> which is merge 9583
19:20:06 <BlueMatt> wumpus: the issue to track this (9148) has been tagged for 14 all along
19:20:11 <CodeShark> What's the target date for 0.15?
19:20:11 <cfields> BlueMatt: which is your recommendation? 9538?
19:20:15 <BlueMatt> cfields: yes
19:20:25 <bitcoin-git> [13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b25068697fdb...82274c02ed2d
19:20:25 <cfields> heh, laggy.
19:20:26 <bitcoin-git> 13bitcoin/06master 14d7c58ad 15Matt Corallo: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending...
19:20:26 <bitcoin-git> 13bitcoin/06master 14376b3c2 15Matt Corallo: Make the cs_sendProcessing a LOCK instead of a TRY_LOCK...
19:20:27 <bitcoin-git> 13bitcoin/06master 1482274c0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9535: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending...
19:20:42 <bitcoin-git> [13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9535: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending (06master...062017-01-cs-vsend-split) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9535
19:21:05 <morcos> Can anyone think of any downside for merging 9583?  Is there any chance we made further changes later that somehow were depending on the fact that we weren't holding cs_main through the wallet updates any more?
19:21:07 <cfields> BlueMatt: sadly, I think I agree. I've been down the rabbit hole today trying to come up with something simple, and it gets more complicated (and I become less comfortable) quickly.
19:21:22 <wumpus> CodeShark: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8719
19:21:33 <morcos> I can't think of anything htat could make sense, but really thats the only downside I could imagine... Otherwise its just not making an improvement that would have been nice to make..
19:22:00 <CodeShark> wumpus: thx
19:22:01 <jonasschnelli> morcos: Yes. Downside is slighly slower sync/rescan
19:22:02 <BlueMatt> (and I do not believe it is (yet) a major performance regression because this is pretty much all called from the single ProcessMessages thread)
19:22:10 <gmaxwell> I don't think any design depended on not holding it, varrious testing might have.
19:22:19 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I don't see how it could result in a slower sync, it's all in one thread.
19:22:41 <gmaxwell> (and the networking thread doesn't itself grab cs_main)
19:23:09 <cfields> morcos: isn't there still one site where it gets called without cs_main though?
19:23:12 <jonasschnelli> Hmm.. I guess I'm wrong. #7946 didn't and it was acctually a stepping stone for stuff that's not PRed.
19:23:14 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7946 | Reduce cs_main locks during ConnectTip/SyncWithWallets by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:23:16 <BlueMatt> my intention for 0.15 is to move these callbacks into a background thread asap
19:24:34 <BlueMatt> cfields: that will not be true after the revert, i think
19:24:40 <morcos> cfields: Do you mean after the reversion in 9583?  I don't think so?
19:25:10 <cfields> ok, maybe i traced it wrong. Will do again.
19:25:14 <BlueMatt> ok, if no one has any conceptual objections to 9583, then I dont think there is much to discuss on it now, just note that thoruough review is needed
19:25:49 <wumpus> any other proposed topics?
19:25:56 <sipa> sad, but i accept that 9583 is probably the only viable solution for 0.14
19:26:25 <BlueMatt> indeed
19:26:35 <BlueMatt> one step forward, one step back, but at least we learned something
19:26:39 <BlueMatt> 2 steps forward for 0.15 :)
19:26:43 <luke-jr> ☺
19:27:07 <jonasschnelli> We could wrap it in #ifdef WALLET_ENABLED... *duck*
19:27:26 <BlueMatt> its used in net_processing
19:27:56 <jonasschnelli> I meant the cs_main lock for SyncTransaction, but just kidding.
19:29:52 <wumpus> any other proposed topics?
19:30:06 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: are we still doing #9501 for 0.14?
19:30:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9501 | Final Alert for 0.14 · Issue #9501 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:30:28 <gmaxwell> AFAIK we are. When should we be sending it to the network?
19:30:39 <sipa> i think this is a good a time as any
19:30:39 <petertodd> gmaxwell: +1
19:30:47 <sipa> *as
19:30:52 <gmaxwell> We can't PR the message send until we're ready for the message to hit the network.
19:31:02 <wumpus> #topic  Final Alert for 0.14
19:31:07 <gmaxwell> Okay I can do that today, I don't think we need any delays or announcements given the prior alert.
19:31:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we could PR it without the signature
19:31:14 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ACK
19:31:19 <wumpus> let's just do it
19:31:23 <luke-jr> fine with me
19:31:28 <achow101> ACK
19:31:32 <petertodd> wumpus: <insert meme here>
19:32:26 <gmaxwell> K. well at least we don't have to discuss text for it.
19:33:01 <achow101> I can pr an update to the bitcoin.org post
19:33:01 <wumpus> hehe
19:33:16 <BlueMatt> 9108 needs an 0.14 tag, i believe
19:33:45 <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: not necessarily
19:33:49 <BlueMatt> i vote 9392 gets a non-0.14 tag
19:33:53 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: it fixes an 0.14-tagged issue
19:34:02 <BlueMatt> so either that or 9034 loses its tag
19:34:07 <jonasschnelli> WatchOnly where always with birthday 0
19:34:13 <sipa> https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder963/500x/74859963.jpg
19:34:15 <jonasschnelli> indeed
19:34:29 <gmaxwell> There are a number of importmulti serious bugfixes I have queued which I was waiting until after the freeze to finish.
19:35:01 <jonasschnelli> ack on untag #9034 for 0.14?
19:35:03 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9034 | importmulti does not respect the given timestamp · Issue #9034 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:35:28 <wumpus> BlueMatt: tagged
19:35:31 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I assume that is related to #9491?
19:35:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9491 | Importmulti api is confusing in a way that could lead to funds loss. · Issue #9491 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:35:54 <morcos> wait i'm confused...  gmaxwell you don't want those merged before 0.14 or you do?
19:36:55 <jonasschnelli> I guess he don't..
19:36:57 <morcos> nm, BlueMatt confused me...   importmulti fixes should be in 0.14, i think we all agree
19:37:14 <sipa> yes
19:37:27 <jonasschnelli> Ah.. okay. I read it wrong.
19:37:30 <luke-jr> the impression I got is that gmaxwell just has more work to do on them, and was prioritising stuff before it
19:37:38 <sipa> agree
19:37:54 <BlueMatt> I'm ok with untagging #9027 for 14 - it was pointed out that we can do a simple fix to address the issue mentioned there, but there are other issues so its nontrivial to *really* fix
19:37:55 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9027 | Unbounded reorg memory usage · Issue #9027 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:39:42 <morcos> so in the category of fixes
19:40:23 <morcos> wumpus and sipa when you get a chance, take a look at #9371...   i think thats the direction you wanted me to go... and if we do 9583.. its pretty clearly no change in behavior from what txConflicted would have done..
19:40:25 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9371 | Notify on removal by morcos · Pull Request #9371 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:41:42 <bitcoin-git> [13bitcoin] 15paveljanik opened pull request #9587: Do not shadow local variable named `tx`. (06master...0620170119_Wshadow_net_processing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9587
19:42:23 <wumpus> morcos: will do
19:45:30 <wumpus> ok, any other topics?
19:45:39 <sipa> i propose lunch
19:45:39 <BlueMatt> I'm done (finally) :p
19:45:48 <BlueMatt> sipa: too late, already did that
19:46:01 <wumpus> let's end early then
19:46:06 <wumpus> #endmeeting