1 2017-11-02 00:52:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15promag opened pull request #11594: Improve -disablewallet parameter interaction (06master...062017-11-disable-wallet) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11594
  2 2017-11-02 00:56:20	0|promag|fanquake is the lucky luke of github labels
  3 2017-11-02 03:04:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15T-Pham opened pull request #11595: Update error messages in bitcoin-cli.cpp (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11595
  4 2017-11-02 04:00:47	0|dcousens|if `getblock` fails because we are pruning... could it be possible to instead the route the call to a network peer for the block?
  5 2017-11-02 04:00:55	0|dcousens|(`getblock`, the rpc call)
  6 2017-11-02 06:09:37	0|gmaxwell|dcousens: that is a minor amplification attack.
  7 2017-11-02 06:09:54	0|gmaxwell|moreover, no one should be getblocking you for things you can't serve.
  8 2017-11-02 06:10:59	0|dcousens|gmaxwell: my use case is a separate index that wants to catch up to a pruning local bitcoind
  9 2017-11-02 06:11:38	0|dcousens|in no way would I intend for that RPC to be public
 10 2017-11-02 06:12:37	0|dcousens|(context: https://github.com/bitcoinjs/indexd/issues/6)
 11 2017-11-02 06:16:54	0|sipa|dcousens: i think that will be easy to support after we have lightweight mode (which will require that the wallet can also ask for a block to be downloaded)
 12 2017-11-02 06:17:08	0|sipa|concept ack, but it may be far out
 13 2017-11-02 06:41:21	0|dcousens|sipa: fair enough :),   so many other things to fix first,  and data duplication isn't that bad in the mean time.  Users could still run pruned nodes,  they simply have to do it *after* the initial sync
 14 2017-11-02 06:41:40	0|dcousens|aka,  could use the pruning RPC
 15 2017-11-02 06:43:02	0|gmaxwell|dcousens: then you want manual pruning, no
 16 2017-11-02 06:44:49	0|dcousens|gmaxwell: well, its not ideal, but it works - unless the `indexd` db is lost,  then you need to reset both.
 17 2017-11-02 06:45:50	0|dcousens|I think some of the bigger deployments for `indexd` this are either imaging monthly anyway,  so they run the pruning about that length
 18 2017-11-02 07:23:11	0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: yes, it seems we're not going to get around backporting some of the support PRs, I personally think backporting #10756 is ok, not pretty but trying to patch everything up while backporting is likely more risky than doing that
 19 2017-11-02 07:23:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10756 | net processing: swap out signals for an interface class by theuni · Pull Request #10756 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 20 2017-11-02 16:28:48	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yo
 21 2017-11-02 16:30:31	0|sipa|ow
 22 2017-11-02 16:30:46	0|BlueMatt|sipa: sorry, I think there's lots of net context here that is being missed :(
 23 2017-11-02 16:31:07	0|BlueMatt|sipa: I have, on a few branches, an explicit goal of net_processing not relying on *when* FinalizeNode is called
 24 2017-11-02 16:31:12	0|BlueMatt|plus the ForEachNode garbage needs to die
 25 2017-11-02 16:31:20	0|sipa|agree on the last point
 26 2017-11-02 16:31:38	0|BlueMatt|where CNodeState will have the CNode* in it (but it is much more restricted as a "socket reference" essentially - a thing you pass to CConnman to tell it where to send a message)
 27 2017-11-02 16:32:03	0|sipa|but FinalizeNode should, regardless of when it is called, call the scheduler to remove any pending actions for that peer, no?
 28 2017-11-02 16:32:16	0|BlueMatt|but eg the pr I linked to to remove the cs_vNodes lock in ForEachNode almost breaks that logic anyway
 29 2017-11-02 16:32:39	0|BlueMatt|scheduler?
 30 2017-11-02 16:32:43	0|BlueMatt|FinalizeNode isnt on scheduler?
 31 2017-11-02 16:32:51	0|BlueMatt|since it takes things out of vNodes, calls FinalizeNode on it, but the ForEachNode function will be working on a copy of vNodes
 32 2017-11-02 16:33:01	0|BlueMatt|cfields: also
 33 2017-11-02 16:34:09	0|sipa|BlueMatt: the issue here is that there is an action called from the scheduler which may be running while a node is being finalized, no?
 34 2017-11-02 16:34:30	0|BlueMatt|in this case its not, because cs_main, but, yes
 35 2017-11-02 16:34:45	0|BlueMatt|keep in mind also that scheduler is allowed to be multiple threads
 36 2017-11-02 16:34:45	0|sipa|sure, but thinking a bit ahead when cs_main is broken up
 37 2017-11-02 16:34:48	0|BlueMatt|even if it isnt atm
 38 2017-11-02 16:34:49	0|sipa|sure
 39 2017-11-02 16:35:30	0|sipa|hmm, i see - the scheduled action isn't specific for the peer
 40 2017-11-02 16:36:39	0|BlueMatt|when interacting with CConnman I think we should be making essentially 0 assumptions about order of operations cause net frameworks are always all kinds of random
 41 2017-11-02 16:36:57	0|BlueMatt|anyway, I think the pr is more than fine as-is
 42 2017-11-02 16:37:07	0|BlueMatt|it should not be considered a bug for the nodestate to be missing during a ForEachNode
 43 2017-11-02 16:37:10	0|BlueMatt|at least in new code
 44 2017-11-02 16:37:26	0|sipa|BlueMatt: yes, i withdraw my comment about the assert - violating it is much less of a assumption failure then i thought
 45 2017-11-02 16:41:09	0|promag|for those that have 1 min free, I would like to get some concept ack/nack in #11402
 46 2017-11-02 16:41:11	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11402 | [wallet] Use shared pointer for wallet instances by promag · Pull Request #11402 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 47 2017-11-02 16:42:45	0|BlueMatt|#11100 backport or no? MarcoFalke was asking
 48 2017-11-02 16:42:47	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11100 | Fix confusing blockmax{size,weight} options, dont default to throwing away money by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11100 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 49 2017-11-02 16:43:21	0|MarcoFalke|0.15.0.2 is already huge, so I assumed 11100 wouldn't make it any worse.
 50 2017-11-02 16:44:55	0|BlueMatt|I cant say I have a hugely strong opinion
 51 2017-11-02 16:44:59	0|BlueMatt|its obviously a miner-only fix
 52 2017-11-02 16:45:15	0|BlueMatt|it would be nice to get it in if miners switch to 0.15.0.2 as their 0.15 upgrade, but I'm not sure how common that will be
 53 2017-11-02 16:45:30	0|BlueMatt|there are still a number of miners that appear to be mining small blocks due to this misconfiguration
 54 2017-11-02 16:45:39	0|sdaftuar|i would prefer to include it for that ^ reason
 55 2017-11-02 16:46:06	0|BlueMatt|(which is a chunk of the "but segwit has only been a small increase" arguments - miner misconfiguration)
 56 2017-11-02 16:48:25	0|gmaxwell|11100 is simple and harmless, and should really be backported.
 57 2017-11-02 17:02:29	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14720d9e8 15Jonas Schnelli: [Wallet] always show help-line of wallet encryption calls
 58 2017-11-02 17:02:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1b8c88451b05...bfb270acfa30
 59 2017-11-02 17:02:30	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14bfb270a 15MarcoFalke: Merge #11590: [Wallet] always show help-line of wallet encryption calls...
 60 2017-11-02 17:03:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #11590: [Wallet] always show help-line of wallet encryption calls (06master...062017/10/enc_wallet_help) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11590
 61 2017-11-02 17:07:39	0|MarcoFalke|fn github commit sorting
 62 2017-11-02 17:08:03	0|MarcoFalke|Someone should complain about that
 63 2017-11-02 17:08:37	0|sipa|i alreayd have, years ago
 64 2017-11-02 17:21:25	0|sdaftuar|sipa: i think #11560 is ready for merge now (only difference from the commit you ack'ed is the const change)
 65 2017-11-02 17:21:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11560 | Connect to a new outbound peer if our tip is stale by sdaftuar · Pull Request #11560 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 66 2017-11-02 17:46:15	0|cfields|query ryanofsky
 67 2017-11-02 17:49:26	0|wumpus|hehe
 68 2017-11-02 17:50:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #11596: Add missing cs_main locks when accessing chainActive (06master...06chainActive) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11596
 69 2017-11-02 18:30:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof opened pull request #11597: [trivial] Fix error message & styling for when new fee rate < min mem… (06master...06171102-feebumper-lowerfeetxt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11597
 70 2017-11-02 18:40:08	0|jonasschnelli|Is the meeting now in 1h21min?
 71 2017-11-02 18:40:42	0|jonasschnelli|(wintertime)
 72 2017-11-02 18:40:45	0|sdaftuar|20 minutes
 73 2017-11-02 18:40:54	0|jonasschnelli|Thanks
 74 2017-11-02 19:00:02	0|sipa|*drumroll*
 75 2017-11-02 19:00:29	0|achow101|meeting?
 76 2017-11-02 19:00:31	0|BlueMatt|*rimshot*
 77 2017-11-02 19:01:27	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
 78 2017-11-02 19:01:28	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Nov  2 19:01:26 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
 79 2017-11-02 19:01:28	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
 80 2017-11-02 19:01:34	0|jonasschnelli|hi
 81 2017-11-02 19:01:37	0|achow101|hi
 82 2017-11-02 19:01:43	0|meshcollider|hi
 83 2017-11-02 19:01:48	0|jtimon|hi
 84 2017-11-02 19:01:59	0|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 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag
 85 2017-11-02 19:02:07	0|instagibbs|here
 86 2017-11-02 19:02:11	0|sdaftuar|hello
 87 2017-11-02 19:02:12	0|cfields|hi
 88 2017-11-02 19:02:18	0|BlueMatt|15.0.2
 89 2017-11-02 19:02:29	0|MarcoFalke|#topic 0.15.0.2
 90 2017-11-02 19:02:38	0|wumpus|yes, good idea
 91 2017-11-02 19:02:49	0|achow101|it seems like things keep getting added to the milestone
 92 2017-11-02 19:02:55	0|cfields|i think the outstanding PRs are pretty much ready to go
 93 2017-11-02 19:03:03	0|wumpus|great!
 94 2017-11-02 19:03:19	0|wumpus|achow101: only cfields's libevent fix
 95 2017-11-02 19:03:27	0|BlueMatt|11593 needs more review, 11560 could just be merged
 96 2017-11-02 19:03:36	0|morcos|there are 3 PR's left in question: #11100 #11560 #11593
 97 2017-11-02 19:03:38	0|BlueMatt|though I think 11593 is pretty reviewable
 98 2017-11-02 19:03:39	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11100 | Fix confusing blockmax{size,weight} options, dont default to throwing away money by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11100 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 99 2017-11-02 19:03:39	0|kanzure|hi.
100 2017-11-02 19:03:39	0|meshcollider|and more backports
101 2017-11-02 19:03:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11560 | Connect to a new outbound peer if our tip is stale by sdaftuar · Pull Request #11560 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
102 2017-11-02 19:03:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11593 | rpc: work-around an upstream libevent bug by theuni · Pull Request #11593 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
103 2017-11-02 19:03:47	0|BlueMatt|plus backports needs fixing
104 2017-11-02 19:03:54	0|wumpus|the other one is just the backports which need to be done to support all that
105 2017-11-02 19:03:55	0|morcos|i think whichever we can't merge to master and backport right now, we need to just skip..
106 2017-11-02 19:04:13	0|achow101|backports is failing travis right now
107 2017-11-02 19:04:16	0|morcos|BlueMatt: backports for all others are fine... sdaftuar has tiny test fix
108 2017-11-02 19:04:39	0|BlueMatt|yea
109 2017-11-02 19:04:53	0|morcos|although they could use more review, both sdaftuar and ryanofsky are reviewing now
110 2017-11-02 19:04:53	0|wumpus|ok
111 2017-11-02 19:05:36	0|morcos|so we should just make decisions on those last 3 PR's..  11100 is in master, so question is only whether to add it to backports?   any objections?
112 2017-11-02 19:06:11	0|gmaxwell|I really want to see 11100 appear in a release.
113 2017-11-02 19:06:11	0|wumpus|none apparently
114 2017-11-02 19:06:18	0|BlueMatt|backports are already huge, but thats a simple pr and would be very nice to have
115 2017-11-02 19:06:44	0|gmaxwell|It's not the only misconfig now (I see blocks that clearly have minrelay fee cranked up-- e.g. legacy of 0.11-era mempool bloat attacks) but it's the biggest one.
116 2017-11-02 19:06:44	0|wumpus|although I think we should stop moving the goalposts
117 2017-11-02 19:06:51	0|MarcoFalke|ok, will amend the pull with sdaftuar's fix and 11100
118 2017-11-02 19:07:02	0|sipa|11560 is mergable i think
119 2017-11-02 19:07:08	0|BlueMatt|agreed
120 2017-11-02 19:07:08	0|gmaxwell|Well, if there are any issues in backporting, feel free to drop IMO.
121 2017-11-02 19:07:21	0|wumpus|the point of 0.15.0.2 is to protect against an immediate problem, and we should release it if it improves the situation anything from 0.15.0.1
122 2017-11-02 19:07:40	0|BlueMatt|ok, last point of order then is the libevent fix
123 2017-11-02 19:07:43	0|BlueMatt|cfields: you want to say anything?
124 2017-11-02 19:08:38	0|jtimon|ack on #11100 backport
125 2017-11-02 19:08:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11100 | Fix confusing blockmax{size,weight} options, dont default to throwing away money by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11100 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
126 2017-11-02 19:08:59	0|cfields|i've narrowed the workaround even further, it basically just affects a single stable release
127 2017-11-02 19:09:16	0|BlueMatt|(the release that people have been switching to as they upgrade ubuntu, afaiu, fwiw)
128 2017-11-02 19:09:16	0|jtimon|curious, why backport all in one pr?
129 2017-11-02 19:09:28	0|wumpus|jtimon: because many things depend on each other
130 2017-11-02 19:09:29	0|promag|hi
131 2017-11-02 19:09:44	0|MarcoFalke|jtimon: I am not going to push to non-master branches
132 2017-11-02 19:09:45	0|wumpus|jtimon: many of them are not trivial, stand-alone backports... if only
133 2017-11-02 19:09:56	0|MarcoFalke|also what wumpus said
134 2017-11-02 19:10:32	0|cfields|grr, sorry, irc client fell off
135 2017-11-02 19:10:37	0|wumpus|this way there's at least the chance to review, and for travis to test the backported code
136 2017-11-02 19:10:55	0|MarcoFalke|So action merge and bp 11560?
137 2017-11-02 19:11:04	0|sipa|MarcoFalke: ack
138 2017-11-02 19:11:08	0|achow101|+1
139 2017-11-02 19:11:32	0|jonasschnelli|BTW: should we also consider upgrading depends openssl due to CVE-2017-3736?
140 2017-11-02 19:11:37	0|jonasschnelli|Only BIP70 stuff is affected though
141 2017-11-02 19:11:38	0|BlueMatt|+merge and bp 11560
142 2017-11-02 19:11:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bfb270acfa30...7008b07005c5
143 2017-11-02 19:11:46	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146b58360 15Cory Fields: rpc: work-around an upstream libevent bug...
144 2017-11-02 19:11:46	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1497932cd 15Cory Fields: rpc: further constrain the libevent workaround...
145 2017-11-02 19:11:47	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147008b07 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11593: rpc: work-around an upstream libevent bug...
146 2017-11-02 19:12:05	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: how dangerous is that?
147 2017-11-02 19:12:11	0|jonasschnelli|Not really...
148 2017-11-02 19:12:13	0|jonasschnelli|dangerous
149 2017-11-02 19:12:14	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: man, openssl upgrades are really hard to review. :(
150 2017-11-02 19:12:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11593: rpc: work-around an upstream libevent bug (06master...06fix-libevent-cb) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11593
151 2017-11-02 19:12:22	0|wumpus|if not, let postpone it to 0.15.1?
152 2017-11-02 19:12:28	0|jonasschnelli|but we are using open ssl 1.0.1k which is no longer maintained
153 2017-11-02 19:12:31	0|sipa|accessible to a limited number of attackers. An attacker would
154 2017-11-02 19:12:31	0|sipa|additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the target
155 2017-11-02 19:12:31	0|sipa|required for such an attack would be very significant and likely only
156 2017-11-02 19:12:31	0|sipa|The amount of resources
157 2017-11-02 19:12:34	0|sipa|private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a private
158 2017-11-02 19:12:36	0|sipa|key that is shared between multiple clients.
159 2017-11-02 19:12:42	0|gmaxwell|I'd rather be spending effort into further eliminating openssl. :)
160 2017-11-02 19:12:47	0|jonasschnelli|0.15.1 should be fine IMO
161 2017-11-02 19:12:48	0|jtimon|is anybody using bip70?
162 2017-11-02 19:12:58	0|jonasschnelli|BIP70 without openssl is non-trivial to impossible
163 2017-11-02 19:13:09	0|jonasschnelli|we could remove BIP70 support... *duck* (luke-jr)
164 2017-11-02 19:13:23	0|achow101|jtimon: I'm pretty sure bitpay does
165 2017-11-02 19:13:24	0|BlueMatt|we could remove the ssl-checking part of bip70
166 2017-11-02 19:13:26	0|jonasschnelli|(no tests, no active maintenance)
167 2017-11-02 19:13:26	0|morcos|cfields: are there any changes to our httpserver/libevent code between master and 0.15, or its fine to just backport 11593 without thinking abou tit
168 2017-11-02 19:13:31	0|jtimon|achow101: thanks
169 2017-11-02 19:13:35	0|BlueMatt|and just treat it as a "better payment field"
170 2017-11-02 19:13:50	0|gmaxwell|meh, lets not discuss that now.
171 2017-11-02 19:13:55	0|jonasschnelli|Yes
172 2017-11-02 19:13:59	0|cfields|morcos: i'll double-check, but 99% a dumb backport is enough
173 2017-11-02 19:14:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 6 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7008b07005c5...2f959a58744d
174 2017-11-02 19:14:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142d4327d 15Suhas Daftuar: net: Allow connecting to extra outbound peers
175 2017-11-02 19:14:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14db32a65 15Suhas Daftuar: Track tip update time and last new block announcement from each peer
176 2017-11-02 19:14:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ac7b37c 15Suhas Daftuar: Connect to an extra outbound peer if our tip is stale...
177 2017-11-02 19:14:19	0|jonasschnelli|I'd say action: upgrade openssl depends for 0.15.1 or 0.16
178 2017-11-02 19:14:37	0|morcos|woohoo!
179 2017-11-02 19:14:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11560: Connect to a new outbound peer if our tip is stale (06master...062017-10-stale-tip-new-peer) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11560
180 2017-11-02 19:14:43	0|achow101|oh, look at that!
181 2017-11-02 19:14:49	0|jonasschnelli|\o/
182 2017-11-02 19:14:53	0|sdaftuar|yay!
183 2017-11-02 19:14:55	0|gmaxwell|our work here is done.
184 2017-11-02 19:14:55	0|wumpus|whee
185 2017-11-02 19:15:00	0|wumpus|yep, ship it
186 2017-11-02 19:15:03	0|sdaftuar|we're shipping master right
187 2017-11-02 19:15:10	0|cfields|Intel Broadwell (5th generation) and later or AMD Ryzen."
188 2017-11-02 19:15:10	0|cfields|"This only affects processors that support the BMI1, BMI2 and ADX extensions like
189 2017-11-02 19:15:11	0|gmaxwell|:P
190 2017-11-02 19:15:12	0|achow101|it compiles, shit it
191 2017-11-02 19:15:17	0|achow101|*ship
192 2017-11-02 19:15:18	0|sipa|ok, backports are go
193 2017-11-02 19:15:21	0|wumpus|yes, we're releasing 0.16.0.2 instead of 0.15.0.2 :p
194 2017-11-02 19:15:22	0|morcos|achow101: exactly
195 2017-11-02 19:15:39	0|sipa|i do want to stress that these backports may be non-trivial compared to most point releases
196 2017-11-02 19:15:51	0|wumpus|yes, definitely
197 2017-11-02 19:15:58	0|BlueMatt|yea :(
198 2017-11-02 19:16:01	0|sipa|and we should review the patches, and possibly still decide to drop some
199 2017-11-02 19:16:07	0|gmaxwell|all the more reason to get a RC out stat.
200 2017-11-02 19:16:09	0|cfields|right. in addition to the usual checks, everyone should check their own fixes
201 2017-11-02 19:16:11	0|meshcollider|its massive for a point-point release lol
202 2017-11-02 19:16:17	0|wumpus|yes, that's what rcs are for
203 2017-11-02 19:16:25	0|sipa|absolutely
204 2017-11-02 19:16:30	0|achow101|we've got two weeks
205 2017-11-02 19:16:30	0|wumpus|meshcollider: it's completely silly for a .0.2
206 2017-11-02 19:16:31	0|MarcoFalke|its not even a point-release
207 2017-11-02 19:16:36	0|sipa|just pointing out that we're not really done
208 2017-11-02 19:16:55	0|meshcollider|so rc today?
209 2017-11-02 19:17:01	0|cfields|wumpus: don't forget the version bumps :)
210 2017-11-02 19:17:03	0|BlueMatt|hopefully? review backports
211 2017-11-02 19:17:10	0|sipa|meshcollider: review backports first
212 2017-11-02 19:17:16	0|gmaxwell|it's only a pointpoint release because we communicated the extended SW wallet support would be in 0.15.1. Otherwise this would be 0.15.1.
213 2017-11-02 19:17:16	0|wumpus|cfields: good point
214 2017-11-02 19:17:17	0|sdaftuar|#11592
215 2017-11-02 19:17:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11592 | WIP 0.15: Backports by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #11592 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
216 2017-11-02 19:17:22	0|achow101|so review backports and rc tomorrow?
217 2017-11-02 19:17:36	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: I understand, but I expected a much smaller release
218 2017-11-02 19:18:00	0|sipa|wumpus: so did we all, i think
219 2017-11-02 19:18:17	0|wumpus|normally we don't even publically announce minor-minor releases, let alone have an extended rc cycle
220 2017-11-02 19:18:41	0|wumpus|but that's definitely needed now
221 2017-11-02 19:18:47	0|achow101|note to self for future: don't promise things in version numbers
222 2017-11-02 19:19:05	0|jtimon|achow101:
223 2017-11-02 19:19:07	0|jtimon|+1
224 2017-11-02 19:19:08	0|sipa|we should have called it 0.15.$SEGWIT
225 2017-11-02 19:19:08	0|wumpus|achow101: good point
226 2017-11-02 19:19:18	0|gmaxwell|beyond the B2X split fix, I think this release is pretty trivial.
227 2017-11-02 19:19:19	0|sipa|but i agree, achow101
228 2017-11-02 19:19:33	0|gmaxwell|fixes*
229 2017-11-02 19:19:36	0|wumpus|don't promise things, period :)
230 2017-11-02 19:20:04	0|jonasschnelli|^ (especially not on a timeline)
231 2017-11-02 19:20:18	0|gmaxwell|well if you'd be more comfortable calling it 0.15.1 I'd support that too. it's not like it's a big deal to say 'nope segwit stuff got pushed back due to snafu-mitigation'
232 2017-11-02 19:20:58	0|jtimon|I would prefer to call it 0.15.1, but not a big deal\
233 2017-11-02 19:21:00	0|cfields|from now on, we'll promise new features at block heights rather than timestamps :p
234 2017-11-02 19:21:09	0|sipa|we could of course also include #11167 (support for sending to bech32) and call it 0.15.1 *ducks*
235 2017-11-02 19:21:15	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11167 | Full BIP173 (Bech32) support by sipa · Pull Request #11167 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
236 2017-11-02 19:21:23	0|gmaxwell|too bad that has a bunch of refactors.
237 2017-11-02 19:21:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.15 1401e173f 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Bump version to 0.15.0.2...
238 2017-11-02 19:21:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.15: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/01e173f5b8985ad5ec14c1621531a003635f9800
239 2017-11-02 19:21:36	0|sipa|(that's not a serious suggestion, please let's not delay things further)
240 2017-11-02 19:22:01	0|wumpus|oh okay, calling it 0.15.1 is also ok with me
241 2017-11-02 19:22:10	0|gmaxwell|for some context there, new electrum shipped that has 'segwit wallet support' -- which for them is BIP173 only.
242 2017-11-02 19:22:18	0|jonasschnelli|0.15.1 seems to make more sense to me... I don't think many people do expect SW Wallet support
243 2017-11-02 19:22:23	0|wumpus|ok
244 2017-11-02 19:22:36	0|gmaxwell|so already getting some reports of not being able to send to it from Bitcoin Core, ::sigh:: :)
245 2017-11-02 19:22:38	0|wumpus|yes, definitely better
246 2017-11-02 19:22:49	0|sipa|gmaxwell: well, electrum's problem
247 2017-11-02 19:23:07	0|jonasschnelli|Slow transition.... no hurry
248 2017-11-02 19:23:42	0|wumpus|indeed, just a matter of time
249 2017-11-02 19:24:00	0|wumpus|some software can be ahead of others, that's what you'll always have
250 2017-11-02 19:24:20	0|instagibbs|Electrum supports multiwallet, it's fine
251 2017-11-02 19:25:27	0|wumpus|great
252 2017-11-02 19:25:46	0|sdaftuar|release notes?  anyone started that?
253 2017-11-02 19:25:47	0|wumpus|so, everyone agree that the release will be 0.15.1?
254 2017-11-02 19:25:52	0|sdaftuar|wumpus: sounds good
255 2017-11-02 19:26:01	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: ack
256 2017-11-02 19:26:07	0|gmaxwell|sounds fine.
257 2017-11-02 19:26:11	0|promag|lgtm
258 2017-11-02 19:26:45	0|sipa|ack
259 2017-11-02 19:26:56	0|meshcollider|is there a TODO for release notes 0.15.0.2?
260 2017-11-02 19:27:00	0|meshcollider|can only find 16.0
261 2017-11-02 19:27:06	0|wumpus|meshcollider: on the 0.15 branch
262 2017-11-02 19:27:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.15 14f224cbc 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Bump version to 0.15.1...
263 2017-11-02 19:27:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj 04force-pushed 060.15 from 1401e173f to 14f224cbc: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/0.15
264 2017-11-02 19:27:57	0|achow101|0.15.1 is fine with me
265 2017-11-02 19:28:39	0|meshcollider|wumpus: I mean an issue like 11054
266 2017-11-02 19:28:39	0|wumpus|an actual point release, this feels much better
267 2017-11-02 19:28:47	0|wumpus|release notes are certainly important, though they don't need to be ready for rc1
268 2017-11-02 19:28:49	0|morcos|one comment about the version
269 2017-11-02 19:28:56	0|morcos|i talked to Alyssa from CoinDesk abou tthis
270 2017-11-02 19:29:05	0|morcos|not sure if they published an article or about to
271 2017-11-02 19:29:09	0|wumpus|meshcollider: no, we don't make topics that for minor releases generally
272 2017-11-02 19:29:21	0|meshcollider|ah ok
273 2017-11-02 19:30:24	0|jtimon|morcos: should be easy to correct their article, no?
274 2017-11-02 19:30:44	0|wumpus|if you're in contact with them please let them know this is not the .1 they're expecting
275 2017-11-02 19:30:50	0|jonasschnelli|morcos: Maybe tell here that the SW2X aware version is now 0.15.1 and SW wallet version is *unknown" for now?
276 2017-11-02 19:30:56	0|morcos|yeah i don't see anything majorly published, i'll tell her now
277 2017-11-02 19:31:04	0|morcos|who knows if she was going to even say anything
278 2017-11-02 19:31:38	0|jtimon|just s/0.15.1/0.15.2 and s/0.15.0.2/0.15.1/
279 2017-11-02 19:31:47	0|wumpus|yes, segwit wallet delayed due to necessary s2x preparations :(
280 2017-11-02 19:32:10	0|BlueMatt|s/necessary/hopefully unecessary, though possibly necessary/
281 2017-11-02 19:32:17	0|sipa|arguably these were necessary preprations anyway - they're not specific to 2X
282 2017-11-02 19:32:24	0|BlueMatt|indeed
283 2017-11-02 19:32:27	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: better to be prepared at least
284 2017-11-02 19:32:28	0|BlueMatt|we now have outbound peer rotation!
285 2017-11-02 19:32:31	0|sipa|we just had to prioritize these P2P improvements
286 2017-11-02 19:32:33	0|jonasschnelli|but more pressing since SW2X
287 2017-11-02 19:32:34	0|BlueMatt|:bottlepop emoji"
288 2017-11-02 19:32:36	0|BlueMatt|:
289 2017-11-02 19:32:41	0|wumpus|sipa: sure, but the reason this was prioeritized over segwit I mean
290 2017-11-02 19:32:43	0|gmaxwell|yes, are generally good improvements which we should have done eventually regardless.
291 2017-11-02 19:33:04	0|morcos|ok i emailed her, i'm fine to switch it, i just wanted to be sure there wasn't already some article out there
292 2017-11-02 19:33:22	0|jonasschnelli|Who cares. :)
293 2017-11-02 19:33:23	0|sipa|i went back and edited some reddit comments i made about 0.15.1
294 2017-11-02 19:33:28	0|sipa|i think it's fine
295 2017-11-02 19:33:39	0|gmaxwell|morcos: inaccurate details in a press article about bitcoin?! Good thing you prevent that from ever happening.
296 2017-11-02 19:33:43	0|jonasschnelli|Things are in-move....
297 2017-11-02 19:33:52	0|BlueMatt|lolol
298 2017-11-02 19:33:53	0|wumpus|then after this we can do segwit wallet as 0.15.2, or 0.16.0, depending on what makes sense in the time frame that things are ready
299 2017-11-02 19:34:36	0|jonasschnelli|Yeah.. I would not promis 0.15.2 now (even if it's very likely to happen with SW Wallet)
300 2017-11-02 19:34:37	0|sipa|ya
301 2017-11-02 19:34:52	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: indeed
302 2017-11-02 19:35:14	0|jtimon|perhaps we could consider doing 0.16 faster instead of doing a 0.15.2 release with segwit?
303 2017-11-02 19:35:17	0|jonasschnelli|features are not tied to releases... releases are tied to the planed timeframe
304 2017-11-02 19:35:38	0|jtimon|I guess it would be a bad precedent
305 2017-11-02 19:35:44	0|BlueMatt|ok, more topics?
306 2017-11-02 19:35:47	0|wumpus|jtimon: I'm ok with that - though the original reasoning was exactly opposite, add some time to 0.16 to be able to do a segwit release in between - but yeah, things have changed
307 2017-11-02 19:36:04	0|gmaxwell|so 0.16 release next week?
308 2017-11-02 19:36:10	0|jonasschnelli|;-)
309 2017-11-02 19:36:16	0|BlueMatt|#action activate segwit?
310 2017-11-02 19:36:31	0|wumpus|jtimon: also to not have another hairy, big set of backports
311 2017-11-02 19:36:43	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: always optimistic :)
312 2017-11-02 19:36:58	0|jtimon|wumpus: yeah I'm perhaps more worried about the latter
313 2017-11-02 19:37:31	0|jonasschnelli|\o/
314 2017-11-02 19:37:39	0|sipa|MarcoFalke: congrats!
315 2017-11-02 19:37:41	0|wumpus|congratulations MarcoFalke
316 2017-11-02 19:37:42	0|cfields|MarcoFalke: congrats :)
317 2017-11-02 19:37:43	0|gmaxwell|MarcoFalke: congrats.
318 2017-11-02 19:37:54	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: Congrats. Have fun in NY!
319 2017-11-02 19:37:56	0|instagibbs|what does that bring the commit % to :P
320 2017-11-02 19:37:56	0|sdaftuar|MarcoFalke: welcome! :)
321 2017-11-02 19:38:02	0|jtimon|yeah, cool
322 2017-11-02 19:38:03	0|BlueMatt|instagibbs: shhhhhhhhhhh
323 2017-11-02 19:38:11	0|instagibbs|congrats!
324 2017-11-02 19:38:16	0|cfields|heh
325 2017-11-02 19:38:26	0|BlueMatt|in the future, all coredev.tech events are required to occur in ny to minimize total flight time =D
326 2017-11-02 19:38:27	0|meshcollider|\o/
327 2017-11-02 19:38:28	0|instagibbs|Eastern US powerhouse too :)
328 2017-11-02 19:38:28	0|jtimon|chaincode conspiracies coming...
329 2017-11-02 19:38:33	0|MarcoFalke|instagibbs: It's not retroactive ;)
330 2017-11-02 19:38:33	0|morcos|instagibbs: which ones, the ones we do ourselves or the ones under our blockstream contract?
331 2017-11-02 19:38:43	0|jonasschnelli|ChainCodeLabs marketing departure must confront now with new ChainCode Core conspiracy
332 2017-11-02 19:38:45	0|instagibbs|morcos, one and the same, right?
333 2017-11-02 19:38:48	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: lol
334 2017-11-02 19:38:50	0|achow101|chaincore
335 2017-11-02 19:39:02	0|jonasschnelli|heh
336 2017-11-02 19:39:10	0|cfields|BlockChain
337 2017-11-02 19:39:11	0|cfields|wait...
338 2017-11-02 19:39:18	0|sdaftuar|lol
339 2017-11-02 19:39:19	0|gmaxwell|lol
340 2017-11-02 19:39:20	0|morcos|took you long enough
341 2017-11-02 19:39:21	0|jonasschnelli|lol
342 2017-11-02 19:39:34	0|sipa|ChainStream
343 2017-11-02 19:39:41	0|jtimon|codestream
344 2017-11-02 19:39:41	0|wumpus|hah!
345 2017-11-02 19:39:50	0|jtimon|anyway, other topics?
346 2017-11-02 19:40:36	0|wumpus|let's get backporting then
347 2017-11-02 19:40:53	0|gmaxwell|I thought we were gonna ship master! :P
348 2017-11-02 19:41:21	0|jtimon|but that's afterwards, release 0.15.1, then rc master the day after, no?
349 2017-11-02 19:41:22	0|wumpus|we coulld do that too and make people choose :p
350 2017-11-02 19:41:44	0|gmaxwell|WE HERD U LIK CHOICES
351 2017-11-02 19:41:53	0|wumpus|YAH
352 2017-11-02 19:42:16	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-11-02-19.01.log.html
353 2017-11-02 19:42:16	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Nov  2 19:42:15 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
354 2017-11-02 19:42:16	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-11-02-19.01.html
355 2017-11-02 19:42:16	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-11-02-19.01.txt
356 2017-11-02 19:42:16	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
357 2017-11-02 19:42:22	0|sipa|"Bitcoin Core now comes in multiple flavours! Bitcoin Core Home, Bitcoin Core Pro, Bitcoin Core XP, ..."
358 2017-11-02 19:42:33	0|instagibbs|Bitcoin Core ME, don't forget ME
359 2017-11-02 19:42:33	0|jtimon|random non-priority review begging: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8994
360 2017-11-02 19:42:58	0|achow101|Bitcoin Core Server Edition
361 2017-11-02 19:43:39	0|BlueMatt|achow101: no, thats FIBRE
362 2017-11-02 19:44:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon closed pull request #11430: Add BIP16 to consensus params for consistency (06master...06b16-bip90-bip16) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11430
363 2017-11-02 19:49:15	0|cfields|MarcoFalke: any especially non-trivial backports we should give extra scrutiny?
364 2017-11-02 19:51:02	0|MarcoFalke|cfields: They are mostly clean cherry-picks (beside one or two minor conflicts)
365 2017-11-02 19:51:19	0|MarcoFalke|I am mostly worried about silent merge conflicts
366 2017-11-02 19:51:36	0|cfields|ok great, i was nervous that the signals/interface change might've introduced a bunch of conflicts
367 2017-11-02 19:51:52	0|MarcoFalke|but it compiles, so everything must be right
368 2017-11-02 19:51:54	0|MarcoFalke|right?
369 2017-11-02 19:52:02	0|cfields|hah, good enough
370 2017-11-02 19:52:38	0|BlueMatt|I mean our tests are prefect, right?
371 2017-11-02 19:52:54	0|jtimon|MarcoFalke: of course, it even passes travis, can't be wrong
372 2017-11-02 19:52:54	0|sdaftuar|nothing could possibly go wrong
373 2017-11-02 19:53:13	0|BlueMatt|someone wanna close #11575? Looks like his wallet got corrupted by sitting around for a few years....nothing to be done, he's just asking for support now...
374 2017-11-02 19:53:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11575 | CDBEnv::EnvShutdown: Error -30974 shutting down database environment: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery · Issue #11575 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
375 2017-11-02 20:00:35	0|karelb|Oh. I came to watch the meeting, I am one hour late because of daylight saving time.
376 2017-11-02 20:00:36	0|karelb|FINE
377 2017-11-02 20:01:13	0|meshcollider|heh DST is fun like that ;)
378 2017-11-02 20:06:28	0|achow101|DST ends on sunday in the US
379 2017-11-02 20:06:59	0|meshcollider|does the whole US have one DST shift, or is it different for different parts?
380 2017-11-02 20:07:29	0|instagibbs|depends on state I believe
381 2017-11-02 20:08:05	0|achow101|It's state by state, but those that have DST shift at the same time IIRC
382 2017-11-02 20:47:49	0|BlueMatt|hey! we can make travis bitch on here when master builds fail
383 2017-11-02 20:47:53	0|BlueMatt|...maybe we should do that
384 2017-11-02 20:51:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #11598: Make travis complain on #bitcoin-core-dev when builds fail (06master...062017-10-travis-irc-notifications) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11598
385 2017-11-02 21:05:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt closed pull request #11598: Make travis complain on #bitcoin-core-dev when builds fail (06master...062017-10-travis-irc-notifications) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11598
386 2017-11-02 21:31:04	0|bomberb17|?
387 2017-11-02 21:59:26	0|travis-ci|Build details : https://travis-ci.org/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/builds/296471305
388 2017-11-02 21:59:26	0|travis-ci|Change view : https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/compare/5d465e396249^...f9cd8b458a92
389 2017-11-02 21:59:26	0|travis-ci|TheBlueMatt/bitcoin#674 (2017-10-travis-irc-notifications - f9cd8b4 : Matt Corallo): The build passed.
390 2017-11-02 21:59:27	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/674 | Cannot compile Mac · Issue #674 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
391 2017-11-02 22:01:37	0|BlueMatt|lol, cfields you were right
392 2017-11-02 22:01:55	0|cfields|heh
393 2017-11-02 22:02:47	0|gmaxwell|bot warz
394 2017-11-02 22:03:40	0|sipa|we must go deeper
395 2017-11-02 22:16:46	0|sipa|cfields: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11389#discussion_r146683391 -> what do you suggest I replace it with?
396 2017-11-02 22:17:13	0|sipa|i wanted to use std::numeric_limits<int64_t>::max_value, but that required adding an extra include
397 2017-11-02 22:19:29	0|gmaxwell|an extra include to bring in numeric limits sounds reasonable, ... they should be included pretty much everywhere regardless....
398 2017-11-02 22:19:36	0|gmaxwell|an extra include of a boost header OTOH ...
399 2017-11-02 22:22:16	0|cfields|sipa: just dropping the 'U' would be enough to shut me up
400 2017-11-02 22:22:28	0|sipa|cfields: oh!