1 2017-07-02 00:01:08	0|kanzure|sipa: https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/issues/962#issuecomment-312452244
 2 2017-07-02 00:01:57	0|kanzure|ah wait, i didn't notice the flag comment.  ok fine, then it's just a question of what's the default, a much less interesting question to me.
 3 2017-07-02 00:03:11	0|sipa|if this would be introduced now, i think we'd add a naned argument to control this, rather than change the defaukt
 4 2017-07-02 00:19:08	0|gmaxwell|Other than some historical artifacts I don't think it's correct to say we changed the default.
 5 2017-07-02 00:19:21	0|gmaxwell|getblock returns the block. If there is segwit, there is segwit.
 6 2017-07-02 00:19:48	0|gmaxwell|oh you mean that we have that argument.
 7 2017-07-02 00:20:10	0|gmaxwell|The argument exists so that existing software which can't handle segwit blocks can be run _unmodified_, having a named argument wouldn't satisify this.
 8 2017-07-02 00:20:22	0|gmaxwell|It's a compatibility measure.
 9 2017-07-02 00:21:08	0|gmaxwell|And not one that anyone should be using except for a brief window to allow you to slot in a new node version.
10 2017-07-02 00:21:49	0|gmaxwell|Keep in mind our rational for avoiding softforks in major versions: we're trying hard to accomidate people upgrading to enforce the softfork without breaking any of their surrounding infrastructure.
11 2017-07-02 00:24:51	0|gmaxwell|If you could upgrade your software to emit the named argument, you'd just upgrade it to cope with the new serialization. It's hardly more work.
12 2017-07-02 00:29:15	0|kanzure|yes i didn't know about that extra argument  mentioned in that issue ticket, (thus my "nevermind" and sudden disinterest).  if they want the flag off then they should have kept it off, simple problem.
13 2017-07-02 02:08:32	0|phantomcircuit|luke-jr, it's because the m4 script looks for db5 but not db5.3
14 2017-07-02 02:08:37	0|phantomcircuit|and gentoo doesn't have a symlink
15 2017-07-02 02:09:46	0|phantomcircuit|hmm maybe not
16 2017-07-02 02:10:39	0|phantomcircuit|no yeah that's the issue
17 2017-07-02 02:10:41	0|phantomcircuit|hmm
18 2017-07-02 04:58:33	0|gmaxwell|aaee787a2a9090cb4f7159e2328f260343ae7fded220849e21a8519be61ebe37  message82.txt
19 2017-07-02 05:19:26	0|gmaxwell|eaab23579c6ccc0ed40de16aae51c3945359d9b6938d6a01c8094b98875678b4  message83.txt
20 2017-07-02 07:27:54	0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell, chocolate chip cookies confirmed
21 2017-07-02 07:28:02	0|sipa|...?
22 2017-07-02 07:29:13	0|luke-jr|where?
23 2017-07-02 07:33:27	0|phantomcircuit|luke-jr has the right question
24 2017-07-02 07:47:55	0|gmaxwell|Where?
25 2017-07-02 07:55:02	0|achow101|food?
26 2017-07-02 07:56:05	0|gmaxwell|I think the cookies are a lie.
27 2017-07-02 08:04:34	0|goatpig|how is "food" a proper reply to "where"?
28 2017-07-02 08:06:50	0|sipa|i always accept cookies from this domain
29 2017-07-02 08:26:04	0|luke-jr|lol
30 2017-07-02 08:53:12	0|phantomcircuit|anybody know why there's a warning about nStart possibly being uninitialized ?
31 2017-07-02 08:53:18	0|phantomcircuit|i dont see how it's possible
32 2017-07-02 16:33:43	0|BlueMatt|lol, no one notice dbcrash is failing on master-travis?
33 2017-07-02 19:40:15	0|morcos|BlueMatt: I think it's fixed in #10704
34 2017-07-02 19:40:17	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10704 | [tests] nits in dbcrash.py by jnewbery · Pull Request #10704 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
35 2017-07-02 20:02:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10714: Avoid printing incorrect block indexing time due to uninitialized variable (06master...06avoid-uninitialized-nStart) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10714
36 2017-07-02 21:05:52	0|BlueMatt|cool, though whats up with the blockchain.py crashes?
37 2017-07-02 21:11:26	0|jnewbery|BlueMatt: blockchain.py crashes? Do you have a link?
38 2017-07-02 21:13:21	0|BlueMatt|a day or two ago it did
39 2017-07-02 21:13:47	0|BlueMatt|sec
40 2017-07-02 21:14:03	0|jnewbery|can't see it in recent master runs on travis
41 2017-07-02 21:14:28	0|BlueMatt|https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/247128486
42 2017-07-02 21:16:27	0|MarcoFalke|BlueMatt: I think this should be fixed after #10659
43 2017-07-02 21:16:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10659 | [qa] blockchain: Pass on closed connection during generate call by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #10659 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
44 2017-07-02 21:16:45	0|jnewbery|yes - I think you're right
45 2017-07-02 21:16:58	0|jnewbery|last failure on Travis was 6 days ago, so I think we're good
46 2017-07-02 21:19:07	0|BlueMatt|ah, cool :)
47 2017-07-02 21:19:12	0|BlueMatt|figured someone was fixing it :)
48 2017-07-02 21:38:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10715: scripted-diff: Prefer x.empty() over x.size() == 0 or x.length() == 0 (06master...06empty) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10715
49 2017-07-02 23:39:31	0|achow101|What is it with these trolls in the issues tracker?