1 2017-07-25 03:44:52	0|iglobalvn|hi
  2 2017-07-25 07:35:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10923: Use -Wthread-safety-analysis if available (+ -Werror=thread-safety-analysis if --enable-werror) (06master...06thread-safety-analysis) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10923
  3 2017-07-25 07:49:51	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a5ecaf1 15Steven D. Lander: Fix misspellings and remove safety verbiage
  4 2017-07-25 07:49:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0c70e845aa92...1124328ad1e8
  5 2017-07-25 07:49:52	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141124328 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10789: Punctuation/grammer fixes in rpcwallet.cpp...
  6 2017-07-25 07:50:20	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10789: Punctuation/grammer fixes in rpcwallet.cpp (06master...06cli-punctuation-standardization) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10789
  7 2017-07-25 08:18:46	0|jonasschnelli|Is that comment correct? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validationinterface.h#L53 ( BlueMatt )
  8 2017-07-25 08:18:56	0|jonasschnelli|Signal gets fired here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L3187
  9 2017-07-25 08:21:32	0|jonasschnelli|If you request blocks B, C, D  while your tip is A, then all three blocks (B, C, D, regardless of the order) would pass and be trigger the BlockChecked() signal
 10 2017-07-25 10:00:58	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: regarding the CChain object for headers, how to efficiently replace the GetDepthInMainChain in SPV mode?
 11 2017-07-25 10:01:23	0|jonasschnelli|There is a chainActive->Contains(pindex) check in GetDepthInMainChain
 12 2017-07-25 10:01:55	0|jonasschnelli|(which basically is a vector::[] access)
 13 2017-07-25 10:02:17	0|jonasschnelli|without a CChain object this seems to be very inefficient
 14 2017-07-25 10:02:29	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: GetAncestor is log(n)
 15 2017-07-25 10:03:37	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: I see, GetAncestor also uses the pskip
 16 2017-07-25 10:03:46	0|sipa|yes
 17 2017-07-25 10:03:48	0|jonasschnelli|So replacing Contains() with GetAncestor() seems okayish?
 18 2017-07-25 10:04:07	0|sipa|i believe so
 19 2017-07-25 10:04:14	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. Let me benchmark then. Thanks!
 20 2017-07-25 10:23:23	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: is then the assumption 'chainActive.Tip().GetAncestor(otherBlockIndex.nHeight()) == chainActive.Contains(otherBlockIndex)' correct?
 21 2017-07-25 10:25:17	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: yes
 22 2017-07-25 10:25:24	0|jonasschnelli|Thanks
 23 2017-07-25 10:37:20	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kore90 opened pull request #10925: bitcoin adder (06master...06release) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10925
 24 2017-07-25 10:38:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #10925: bitcoin adder (06master...06release) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10925
 25 2017-07-25 10:57:25	0|promag|could we have some convention regarding commit messages and PR titles? for instance, prefix with "foo: " or "[foo] " and so on
 26 2017-07-25 10:58:11	0|promag|I know it's not that important, but consistency is nice
 27 2017-07-25 10:59:29	0|sipa|it's a balance between consistency and having people be annoyed at having too many rules :)
 28 2017-07-25 11:11:03	0|luke-jr|promag: I always use "foo: "
 29 2017-07-25 11:32:02	0|wumpus|I also use foo:, but I don't care what you use
 30 2017-07-25 11:32:21	0|wumpus|(foo: is the same as kernel/mesa so I can't forget that)
 31 2017-07-25 11:34:10	0|jonasschnelli|sipa If use [foo]... but obviously foo: is more pure text conform.
 32 2017-07-25 11:34:24	0|jonasschnelli|(sorry for the wrong highlight)
 33 2017-07-25 11:34:38	0|jonasschnelli|* I use
 34 2017-07-25 11:35:08	0|sipa|we should encourage html3 tags in commit titles
 35 2017-07-25 11:36:03	0|sipa|improve readability on <blink>800x600</blink> resolution!
 36 2017-07-25 11:36:25	0|wumpus|commit stylesheet extensions
 37 2017-07-25 11:37:39	0|instagibbs|commit messages should always be rendered in comic sans
 38 2017-07-25 11:37:53	0|wumpus|color: #ff0000;
 39 2017-07-25 11:38:33	0|wumpus|instagibbs: at the least in large, friendly letters
 40 2017-07-25 11:39:58	0|wumpus|sipa: seems your latest change to 10526 made things better, repeated the test 3 times, FWIW all three times it had done the cleanup
 41 2017-07-25 11:40:34	0|wumpus|will let it run a few more times just to be sure
 42 2017-07-25 11:40:52	0|sipa|wumpus: great... aybe we shouldn't bother running the intermediate compactions?
 43 2017-07-25 11:41:11	0|sipa|the hooe was that during the uograde process the disk usage wouldn't double
 44 2017-07-25 11:41:18	0|sipa|but it does not seem to have that effect
 45 2017-07-25 11:42:31	0|wumpus|I guess trying doesn't hurt either
 46 2017-07-25 11:43:40	0|wumpus|maybe it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, depending on how the records happen to be distributed on disk
 47 2017-07-25 11:45:11	0|promag|lol ok
 48 2017-07-25 11:46:57	0|wumpus|though I don't know the effect on performance
 49 2017-07-25 11:47:19	0|wumpus|bleh, this time it was 4.5G
 50 2017-07-25 11:47:36	0|wumpus|so no, it's still not entirely reliable
 51 2017-07-25 11:47:49	0|wumpus|(and this is starting with exactly the same database every time!)
 52 2017-07-25 11:48:16	0|sipa|but it does shrink after restart?
 53 2017-07-25 11:48:23	0|wumpus|yes
 54 2017-07-25 11:49:18	0|sipa|that's something at least, i guess
 55 2017-07-25 11:49:21	0|wumpus|it eventually catches on and compacts, but it doesn't seem to be deterministic
 56 2017-07-25 11:49:59	0|wumpus|(well, it always has done so at the next run, up until now)
 57 2017-07-25 11:51:54	0|wumpus|monitoring disk usage *during* the process might be interesting too, to see when it does the compaction, but meh
 58 2017-07-25 11:52:31	0|sipa|yeah
 59 2017-07-25 11:56:00	0|luke-jr|‎[11:39:32] ‎* ‎sipa‎‎ mentally sees a "DON'T PANIC" now <-- I noticed Android likes to capitalise "Don't Panic" when the words appear in that order.
 60 2017-07-25 11:57:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10529: Improve bitcoind systemd service file (06master...06systemd-service) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10529
 61 2017-07-25 11:57:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10531: Increased startup timeout. (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10531
 62 2017-07-25 12:08:41	0|luke-jr|I guess we should probably remove the systemd file altogether if nobody wants to maintain it
 63 2017-07-25 12:11:22	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149737572 15Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] Use wallet 0 in rpc console if running with multiple wallets
 64 2017-07-25 12:11:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1124328ad1e8...412b466d11ff
 65 2017-07-25 12:11:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14412b466 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10870: [Qt] Use wallet 0 in rpc console if running with multiple wallets...
 66 2017-07-25 12:11:40	0|wumpus|well for both proposed changes there is no agreement, keeping the PR open for months doesn't help
 67 2017-07-25 12:11:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10870: [Qt] Use wallet 0 in rpc console if running with multiple wallets (06master...062017/07/qt_mw) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10870
 68 2017-07-25 12:11:56	0|wumpus|not sure that having no example is better, but it can't accomodate everyone
 69 2017-07-25 12:16:13	0|wumpus|I know nothing about systemd configuration files, so I can't help there at least
 70 2017-07-25 12:17:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10301: Check if sys/random.h is required for getentropy. (06master...06getentropy-rand) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10301
 71 2017-07-25 12:23:46	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144f92b5f 15Russell Yanofsky: Run Qt wallet tests on travis...
 72 2017-07-25 12:23:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/412b466d11ff...1caafa6cde3b
 73 2017-07-25 12:23:47	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141caafa6 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10508: Run Qt wallet tests on travis...
 74 2017-07-25 12:24:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10508: Run Qt wallet tests on travis (06master...06pr/travqt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10508
 75 2017-07-25 12:24:06	0|luke-jr|wumpus: 10529 sounded like the current one is just broken IIRC
 76 2017-07-25 12:26:27	0|wumpus|ok, reopening then
 77 2017-07-25 12:26:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj reopened pull request #10529: Improve bitcoind systemd service file (06master...06systemd-service) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10529
 78 2017-07-25 12:45:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #10927: test: Make sure wallet.backup is created in temp path (06master...062017_07_wallet_backup_temp_path) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10927
 79 2017-07-25 14:37:32	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: I believe thats still "correct", no?
 80 2017-07-25 14:37:49	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: though the comment may only be correct after its moved to a background thread
 81 2017-07-25 14:39:13	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: oh, i see your confusion, no, what you want to look at is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L2197
 82 2017-07-25 14:39:34	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: the one you linked to is only called if the state is !IsValid()
 83 2017-07-25 14:43:58	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: do you know why its not also called when AcceptBlock does return true?
 84 2017-07-25 14:44:18	0|jonasschnelli|because its also called during ConnectTip() then (called twice)
 85 2017-07-25 14:44:21	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: cause it should only be called once per block
 86 2017-07-25 14:44:26	0|BlueMatt|wait, it shouldnt be?
 87 2017-07-25 14:44:54	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: i think the one you linked to is only AcceptBlock IsInvalid, ie it wasnt even stored on disk
 88 2017-07-25 14:45:06	0|BlueMatt|the ConnectTip one can only fire if AcceptBlock took it
 89 2017-07-25 14:46:06	0|jonasschnelli|i see
 90 2017-07-25 14:46:17	0|BlueMatt|you should double check, but I believe that is correct
 91 2017-07-25 15:28:45	0|promag|wumpus: please restart job https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/257251574
 92 2017-07-25 15:34:08	0|jonasschnelli|promag: done
 93 2017-07-25 15:34:14	0|promag|ty
 94 2017-07-25 15:37:25	0|promag|if (foobar) vs if (foobar != nullptr) vs if (foobar != NULL) ?
 95 2017-07-25 15:37:34	0|promag|don't ban me.. :P
 96 2017-07-25 15:38:10	0|promag|looking the code the most frequent is the 1st..
 97 2017-07-25 18:18:36	0|BlueMatt|things that (probably) need a 15 tag: 10914, 10799
 98 2017-07-25 19:24:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d64ac3f 15Jonas Schnelli: [tests] Allow tests to pass when stderr is non-empty...
 99 2017-07-25 19:24:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1caafa6cde3b...f1f1605c22a6
100 2017-07-25 19:24:20	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f1f1605 15MarcoFalke: Merge #10703: [tests] Allow tests to pass when stderr is non-empty...
101 2017-07-25 19:24:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #10703: [tests] Allow tests to pass when stderr is non-empty (06master...06test_stderr) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10703
102 2017-07-25 19:26:13	0|gmaxwell|^ that means we can't use tsan with tests anymore, no?
103 2017-07-25 19:27:04	0|wumpus|is that so? why don't you reply that on the PR instead of after it is merged?
104 2017-07-25 19:27:29	0|wumpus|I don't see why though, tests can still print things to stderr, it just won't cause them to fail
105 2017-07-25 19:28:13	0|wumpus|apparently #10882 (which has 0.15 milestone) was depending on it
106 2017-07-25 19:28:15	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10882 | Keypool topup by jnewbery · Pull Request #10882 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
107 2017-07-25 19:29:43	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: because you commented on it on the original pr, and I hadn't seen the second.
108 2017-07-25 19:29:54	0|wumpus|it introduces a "passed with warnings" result if a test succeeds but prints to stderr
109 2017-07-25 19:29:55	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: it still prints "Passed with warnings"
110 2017-07-25 19:29:58	0|wumpus|seems good enough to me
111 2017-07-25 19:30:01	0|BlueMatt|so you can see it
112 2017-07-25 19:30:02	0|wumpus|no need to panic
113 2017-07-25 19:30:08	0|gmaxwell|that wasn't a panic.
114 2017-07-25 19:31:00	0|gmaxwell|it was a question, seems you've answered it. though I'm concerned that passed with warnings will become the normal state since travis won't reject it. Can someone explain the need for this to me?
115 2017-07-25 19:31:05	0|BlueMatt|no, what my gpu makes my kernel do is a panic :(
116 2017-07-25 19:32:03	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: i have to assume cause the keypool topup thing prints warnings that you need to top up your keypool? dunno, havent had a chance to review that one yet
117 2017-07-25 19:32:03	0|gmaxwell|litterally the PR says "not sure how much people want this" and the original PR has no description at all beyond the title.
118 2017-07-25 19:32:20	0|wumpus|<wumpus> apparently #10882 (which has 0.15 milestone) was depending on it
119 2017-07-25 19:32:22	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10882 | Keypool topup by jnewbery · Pull Request #10882 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
120 2017-07-25 19:32:28	0|BlueMatt|ryanofsky or jnewbery may know
121 2017-07-25 19:32:32	0|wumpus|that's why it was merged
122 2017-07-25 19:33:25	0|ryanofsky|i'm actually not sure the reason for the dependency
123 2017-07-25 19:33:29	0|BlueMatt|heh, really shit time for everyone to be in japan
124 2017-07-25 19:33:42	0|wumpus|anyhow if tests don't succeed they shouldn't return success
125 2017-07-25 19:34:26	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: if so, then does that mean it'll always print that.. in which case, the warnings notice is not useful.
126 2017-07-25 19:34:52	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: ok, lets wait till jnewbery can come back and answer :)
127 2017-07-25 19:34:53	0|ryanofsky|yeah, that seems reasonable. maybe just revert the change and we can ask john about it to see if there's a better solution
128 2017-07-25 19:34:53	0|wumpus|revert it then?
129 2017-07-25 19:35:06	0|ryanofsky|sound good to me
130 2017-07-25 19:35:07	0|BlueMatt|or just wait till we get an answer
131 2017-07-25 19:35:11	0|BlueMatt|or...whatever, i dont care
132 2017-07-25 19:35:19	0|wumpus|I don't, either
133 2017-07-25 19:35:25	0|ryanofsky|me either
134 2017-07-25 19:36:58	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: in terms of the test passing, the tests still pass the the sanitizers print important notices that things have gone wrong... they've helped us find a lot of serious bugs, if there is a good reason for making changes that indirectly hobble them; okay. But I am completely clueless as to why this change is desirable, and the PRs did not justify it, AFAICT (though it's fully possibly I'm mis
135 2017-07-25 19:37:02	0|wumpus|can we now go back to discussing things before they are merged, instead of after?
136 2017-07-25 19:37:04	0|gmaxwell|sing something).
137 2017-07-25 19:37:39	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: I don't feel like defending the change at all
138 2017-07-25 19:37:59	0|wumpus|afaik I didn't even comment on it
139 2017-07-25 19:38:21	0|wumpus|oh I did on the previous one, months ago
140 2017-07-25 19:38:25	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: you commented on the earlier on, first comment, raising the sanitizer compatiblity concern.
141 2017-07-25 19:38:36	0|wumpus|yep
142 2017-07-25 19:39:00	0|wumpus|ok, reverting it then, seems clearly a misunderstanding
143 2017-07-25 19:39:19	0|gmaxwell|Thanks.
144 2017-07-25 19:48:28	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1460f9778 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Revert "[tests] Allow tests to pass when stderr is non-empty"...
145 2017-07-25 19:48:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/60f9778abfea615beac384a08e6a13ebec65275b
146 2017-07-25 19:57:08	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1488af227 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: test: Make sure wallet.backup is created in temp path...
147 2017-07-25 19:57:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/60f9778abfea...9d5e8f92a7db
148 2017-07-25 19:57:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149d5e8f9 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10927: test: Make sure wallet.backup is created in temp path...
149 2017-07-25 19:57:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10927: test: Make sure wallet.backup is created in temp path (06master...062017_07_wallet_backup_temp_path) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10927
150 2017-07-25 20:03:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1499c7fc3 15Matt Corallo: Prevent user from specifying conflicting parameters to fundrawtx...
151 2017-07-25 20:03:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9d5e8f92a7db...8537187d4213
152 2017-07-25 20:03:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148537187 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10799: Prevent user from specifying conflicting parameters to fundrawtx...
153 2017-07-25 20:03:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10799: Prevent user from specifying conflicting parameters to fundrawtx (06master...062017-07-no-fundraw-conflicts) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10799
154 2017-07-25 20:55:04	0|MarcoFalke|Sorry, I missed the discussion about the stderr thing. Agree that it should be reverted.
155 2017-07-25 20:55:19	0|MarcoFalke|Best is to apply it specifically only where needed
156 2017-07-25 20:55:28	0|MarcoFalke|Instead of per default for all tests
157 2017-07-25 20:58:19	0|MarcoFalke|The exact error message ("Number of keys in keypool is below critical minimum") can even be checked when piped into a SpooledTemporaryFile
158 2017-07-25 20:59:11	0|promag|should we disallow wallet files being symlinks?
159 2017-07-25 21:05:07	0|gmaxwell|MarcoFalke: yea, I think we should have a specific test for that error, since its intentional functionality.
160 2017-07-25 21:05:58	0|MarcoFalke|We already had those issues that the specific error was not tested against. And run into issues...
161 2017-07-25 21:06:03	0|MarcoFalke|Not worth repeating
162 2017-07-25 21:06:15	0|MarcoFalke|Thanks for raising the concern quickly, gmaxwell
163 2017-07-25 21:07:18	0|gmaxwell|No problem, I think I didn't see the new PR because I confused it for the old one or something.
164 2017-07-25 21:08:31	0|MarcoFalke|too much going. I only keep up with pulls after they are merged atm
165 2017-07-25 21:09:17	0|MarcoFalke|jnewbery: Let me know if there are any test pulls I should look at with priority
166 2017-07-25 21:47:20	0|instagibbs|assuming no priority, how does the miner select between two identical feerate transactions if it has to choose between the two?
167 2017-07-25 21:48:50	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: whatever comes up first out of the index.
168 2017-07-25 21:50:51	0|instagibbs|well, yeah :) I guess the answer is "no particular ordering"
169 2017-07-25 23:01:00	0|gmaxwell|I updated my banlists: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/banlist.cli.txt https://people.xiph.org/~greg/banlist.gui.txt