1 2018-04-09 02:58:02	0|kallewoof|I'm a little confused about coinbase transactions and 'is all from me'. Currently, CWallet::IsAllFromMe will say no to a coinbase transaction, even (it appears) if it's the miner's wallet. The check itself tries to find the prevout in the wallet, but prevout is 0000..., so it obviously won't be there. This causes issues with the IsAllFromMe PR (#12508), which I patched by explicitly saying 'true'
  2 2018-04-09 02:58:05	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12508 | IsAllFromMe by kallewoof · Pull Request #12508 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  3 2018-04-09 02:58:05	0|kallewoof|for coinbase txs in CWallet::IsAllFromMe, but I wonder if this will cause everyone to think they own all coinbase transactions...
  4 2018-04-09 02:59:51	0|kallewoof|Then again, if it's a coinbase tx, it will have 100+ confirmations, so in all cases where IsAllFromMe matters (mostly unconfirmed, or low confirm count), it's irrelevant.
  5 2018-04-09 03:00:33	0|wumpus|hmm interesting
  6 2018-04-09 03:00:58	0|kallewoof|Or is there a case where a 100+ confirm input being mine or not mine makes a difference? I guess in spending it someone could double spend, so ^ is probably not right..
  7 2018-04-09 03:02:20	0|wumpus|for 100+ confirms there is no difference. The reason for the 100 depth is to make sure it's deep enough to avoid any realistic reorgs causing trouble.
  8 2018-04-09 03:03:16	0|kallewoof|wumpus: Right. But I realized someone could spend a coinbase tx sending 12.5 btc to me, my node would think it was 'from me' and act accordingly, and then they would double spend it and I would risk losing 12.5 btc.
  9 2018-04-09 03:04:15	0|luke-jr|huh? I don't understand what you're saying at all
 10 2018-04-09 03:04:24	0|luke-jr|generated coins are from noone..
 11 2018-04-09 03:04:31	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: Me neither. I think I'm very confused.
 12 2018-04-09 03:04:48	0|sipa|from me means that the inputs were coins treated as yours
 13 2018-04-09 03:05:14	0|kallewoof|Right. So a coinbase input would not be considered yours even if you created the block?
 14 2018-04-09 03:05:19	0|wumpus|it's impossible to double-spend a coinbase, by definition the coinbase can only be in the block where the reward is taken
 15 2018-04-09 03:05:42	0|luke-jr|kallewoof: the coinbase isn't really an input at all, just dummy data
 16 2018-04-09 03:05:51	0|kallewoof|A coinbase transaction has a coinbase input and an output. I was talking about double spending the output.
 17 2018-04-09 03:06:15	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: The question is, should IsAllFromMe(a coinbase tx) say true or false, for the miner mining it?
 18 2018-04-09 03:06:21	0|luke-jr|false obviously?
 19 2018-04-09 03:06:26	0|luke-jr|it's TO the miner, not FROM him
 20 2018-04-09 03:08:20	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: All right. That makes things a bit tricky, I guess, but I'll dig.
 21 2018-04-09 03:09:17	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: It doesn't seem like morcos's initial idea in #9167 is compatible with your interpretation, though: "Created a new wallet and walletTx function IsAllFromMe which correctly computes whether all the inputs to a transaction match the requested IsMine filter.
 22 2018-04-09 03:09:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9167 | IsAllFromMe by morcos · Pull Request #9167 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 23 2018-04-09 03:09:35	0|sipa|kallewoof: i don't understand why you're concerned about coinbase txn at all
 24 2018-04-09 03:09:49	0|sipa|coinbases are by definition never from anything
 25 2018-04-09 03:09:56	0|kallewoof|sipa: IsMine says true and IsAllFromMe says false for coinbase txs
 26 2018-04-09 03:10:09	0|sipa|yes, as it should?
 27 2018-04-09 03:11:14	0|kallewoof|Sorry, I meant, IsFromMe and IsAllFromMe say true/false for coinbase
 28 2018-04-09 03:11:23	0|sipa|yes, why is that a problem?
 29 2018-04-09 03:12:56	0|kallewoof|Wait, are coinbase transactions from me or not from me? If IsFromMe says true and there's only a coinbase input why would IsAllFromMe say false? Shouldn't both say the same in this case?
 30 2018-04-09 03:13:22	0|kallewoof|luke-jr says false is correct. In which case IsFromMe is wrong, no?
 31 2018-04-09 03:13:27	0|sipa|wait
 32 2018-04-09 03:13:34	0|sipa|oh, IsFromMe is true?
 33 2018-04-09 03:13:37	0|kallewoof|Yes
 34 2018-04-09 03:13:40	0|sipa|that i don't understand!
 35 2018-04-09 03:13:49	0|sipa|maybe it's a special rule for foinbase tzn
 36 2018-04-09 03:13:52	0|sipa|coinbase tzn
 37 2018-04-09 03:13:53	0|kallewoof|All it does is check GetDebit(tx, ISMINE_ALL) > 0
 38 2018-04-09 03:13:55	0|sipa|txn
 39 2018-04-09 03:14:10	0|kallewoof|Right -- I'm saying I need to add that to CWallet::IsAllFromMe as well.
 40 2018-04-09 03:14:17	0|kallewoof|that=the special rule for coinbase txs
 41 2018-04-09 03:14:40	0|sipa|what is IsAllFromMe even used for?
 42 2018-04-09 03:15:33	0|kallewoof|That's a great question. It seems to be used in feebumper, and in wallet.cpp in some places.
 43 2018-04-09 03:15:53	0|kallewoof|Actually no it's only used in feebumper on master.
 44 2018-04-09 03:17:04	0|sipa|yay
 45 2018-04-09 03:17:06	0|kallewoof|So it seems completely fine to allow the special case.
 46 2018-04-09 03:17:12	0|sipa|well, you can't feebump a coinbase!
 47 2018-04-09 03:57:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/27278dffe877...4781813b5617
 48 2018-04-09 03:57:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1408b17de 15Karl-Johan Alm: [arith_uint256] Do not destroy *this content if passed-in operator may reference it
 49 2018-04-09 03:57:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b120f7b 15Karl-Johan Alm: [test] Add tests for self usage in arith_uint256
 50 2018-04-09 03:57:36	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144781813 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12537: [arith_uint256] Make it safe to use "self" in operators...
 51 2018-04-09 03:58:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12537: [arith_uint256] Make it safe to use "self" in operators (06master...06uint-safe-self-op) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12537
 52 2018-04-09 05:56:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15VizXu opened pull request #12919: no message (060.8...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12919
 53 2018-04-09 05:57:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12919: no message (060.8...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12919
 54 2018-04-09 07:52:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof opened pull request #12920: test: Fix sign for expected values (06master...06test-signs) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12920
 55 2018-04-09 08:53:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Empact opened pull request #12921: Make use of cpuid.h bit definitions (06master...06cpuid-bits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12921
 56 2018-04-09 10:59:44	0|wumpus|does anyone happen to have an arm32 system with crc32 feature in /proc/cpuinfo?
 57 2018-04-09 11:02:27	0|wumpus|I want to port https://github.com/laanwj/crcbench to arm32 (with the goal of integrating that into leveldb) however I currently have no wway to test. Well I could check if it compiles, I guess.
 58 2018-04-09 11:04:22	0|wumpus|oh right, I guess 64-bit ARM can run 32-bit executables
 59 2018-04-09 11:41:45	0|MarcoFalke|PSA: We now have 15 parallel jobs on travis for the next year :3
 60 2018-04-09 11:42:44	0|wumpus|awesome, thank you MarcoFalke :)
 61 2018-04-09 11:43:00	0|MarcoFalke|Thanks to ChainCode for sponsoring that!
 62 2018-04-09 11:44:32	0|wumpus|yes!
 63 2018-04-09 11:49:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14bf08fc5 15Karl-Johan Alm: test: Assert on correct variable
 64 2018-04-09 11:49:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4781813b5617...6fc5a050f216
 65 2018-04-09 11:49:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146fc5a05 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12918: test: Assert on correct variable...
 66 2018-04-09 11:50:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12918: test: Assert on correct variable (06master...06test-typo-rpcrawtx) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12918
 67 2018-04-09 11:58:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6fc5a050f216...a04440feb9c9
 68 2018-04-09 11:58:49	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14280023f 15practicalswift: Remove duplicate includes
 69 2018-04-09 11:58:49	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c36b720 15practicalswift: Add Travis check for duplicate includes...
 70 2018-04-09 11:58:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a04440f 15MarcoFalke: Merge #11878: Add Travis check for duplicate includes...
 71 2018-04-09 11:59:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #11878: Add Travis check for duplicate includes (06master...06lint-includes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11878
 72 2018-04-09 12:05:16	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c198dc0 15Jan ÄŒapek: [Doc] Clarify the meaning of fee delta not being a fee rate in prioritisetransaction RPC
 73 2018-04-09 12:05:16	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cd8e45b 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12007: [Doc] Clarify the meaning of fee delta not being a fee rate in prioritisetransaction RPC...
 74 2018-04-09 12:05:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a04440feb9c9...cd8e45b4e75a
 75 2018-04-09 12:05:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12007: [Doc] Clarify the meaning of fee delta not being a fee rate in prioritisetransaction RPC (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12007
 76 2018-04-09 12:07:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149142dfe 15practicalswift: Use explicit casting in cuckoocache's compute_hashes(...) to clarify integer conversion
 77 2018-04-09 12:07:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cd8e45b4e75a...603975b96a15
 78 2018-04-09 12:07:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14603975b 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12770: Use explicit casting in cuckoocache's compute_hashes(...) to clarify integer conversion...
 79 2018-04-09 12:07:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12770: Use explicit casting in cuckoocache's compute_hashes(...) to clarify integer conversion (06master...06cuckoocache) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12770
 80 2018-04-09 12:13:24	0|aj|MarcoFalke: wow!
 81 2018-04-09 12:45:54	0|wumpus|so apparently the crc32 extension only exists on armv8, but I didn't know 32-bit-only armv8 existed but apparently it does (Cortex-A32)
 82 2018-04-09 12:50:08	0|wumpus|anyhow getauxv trick to detect cpu features works; if (getauxval(AT_HWCAP) & HWCAP_CRC32) { on aarch64 and  if (getauxval(AT_HWCAP2) & HWCAP2_CRC32) {  on arm32
 83 2018-04-09 13:21:49	0|MarcoFalke|Anyone else seeing this: #12915?
 84 2018-04-09 13:21:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12915 | Segmentation fault in util: ScheduleBatchPriority · Issue #12915 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 85 2018-04-09 13:26:59	0|aj|hmm, i thought designator initialisers (param{.sched_priority=0}) weren't ok for c++11 (http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/aggregate_initialization says they're c++20 fwiw)
 86 2018-04-09 13:31:11	0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: nope. it crashes inside pthread_setschedparam? that's curious
 87 2018-04-09 13:32:24	0|wumpus|the only way I see that can happen if is a null pointer is passed, but as it is passing a pointer to a static variable you'd say that's not possible
 88 2018-04-09 13:32:54	0|wumpus|does this only happen with the sanitize ron?
 89 2018-04-09 13:35:26	0|aj|err, should it be pthread_self() not 0 as the first argument?
 90 2018-04-09 13:36:40	0|wumpus|uhmm
 91 2018-04-09 13:36:51	0|wumpus|the man page doesn't say anything about 0 being a valid value, at least
 92 2018-04-09 13:37:20	0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: can you try that ^^
 93 2018-04-09 13:38:18	0|MarcoFalke|happens also with sanitizer off
 94 2018-04-09 13:38:47	0|MarcoFalke|I've seen segfaults in the unit test a couple of days ago, but they went away after a reboot. Really sketchy
 95 2018-04-09 13:41:36	0|wumpus|should definitely be pthread_self() - non-determinism in thread ids might explain why it sometimes crashes and sometimes not?
 96 2018-04-09 13:42:38	0|MarcoFalke|For me it always faults
 97 2018-04-09 13:43:13	0|MarcoFalke|The unit test thing was a different topic. Just related because it was also a segfault
 98 2018-04-09 13:46:07	0|MarcoFalke|Making it "const static sched_param param{0};" didn't help
 99 2018-04-09 13:47:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #12923: util: Pass pthread_self() to pthread_setschedparam instead of 0 (06master...062018_04_pthread_self) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12923
100 2018-04-09 13:48:23	0|MarcoFalke|will try that ^
101 2018-04-09 13:51:29	0|MarcoFalke|aj: wumpus: Thx. Work for me now
102 2018-04-09 13:51:40	0|wumpus|I can make the initializer change in the same PR, but as it compiles in c++11 mode, I'm not sure .
103 2018-04-09 13:52:55	0|aj|https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43471743/pthread-self-on-linux -- suggests that without linking pthreads, pthread_self() will sometimes/often/?? return 0
104 2018-04-09 13:54:27	0|wumpus|that explains why it works for some
105 2018-04-09 13:54:45	0|MarcoFalke|aj: I added the cout and it is definetly not 0 for me
106 2018-04-09 13:54:55	0|luke-jr|aj: if you don't link pthreads, pthread_self won't resolve at all, and calling it would be a segfault..
107 2018-04-09 13:54:55	0|wumpus|it depends on the specifics of the pthread implementation, after all posix threads is an interface, not a specific implementation
108 2018-04-09 13:55:03	0|luke-jr|I would expect
109 2018-04-09 13:55:24	0|wumpus|so one should not make any assumptions about the value that it returns
110 2018-04-09 13:58:16	0|aj|luke-jr: works fine for me without linking libpthread, value is very non-zero either way though. (i don't get a segfault with marcofalke's test case)
111 2018-04-09 13:59:02	0|luke-jr|aj: well, glibc no longer has libpthread anymore
112 2018-04-09 13:59:31	0|luke-jr|(threading is part of the libc now, and linking libpthread explicitly actually can have harmful side effects)
113 2018-04-09 14:14:20	0|wumpus|about time that threading moved into libc, even little embedded SoCs are mulitcore these days, having threading as something special/optional is just absurd
114 2018-04-09 14:14:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesob closed pull request #12873: [ci] Run functional tests using bitcoin-qt in one Travis job (06master...062018-04-03-travis-func-qt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12873
115 2018-04-09 14:14:56	0|luke-jr|wumpus: would be nice if they didn't have bugs doing it though :p
116 2018-04-09 14:15:24	0|luke-jr|(with glibc, if you link libpthread, and then call vfork early on, it will just return a pointer to the vfork function rather than actually forking)
117 2018-04-09 14:15:44	0|aj|jamesob: maybe just open a new PR instead? :(
118 2018-04-09 14:16:23	0|jamesob|aj: yeah, probably a good idea. Wonder why/how that PR is screwing travis up.
119 2018-04-09 14:16:33	0|jamesob|sorry for the spam
120 2018-04-09 14:52:10	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: curious: whats the reason for implementing NI crc for arm 32bit?
121 2018-04-09 14:53:29	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: last time I checked, quite a lot of time is spent crcing (for leveldb checksums), while verifying the chain
122 2018-04-09 14:55:22	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: Good to know. I just started to play with the ODROID HC2 (Cortex-A15)
123 2018-04-09 14:55:24	0|wumpus|so using those extensions on hardware that support them probably helps, though I agree the 32-bit case is unlikley to be hit
124 2018-04-09 14:55:43	0|wumpus|(as 32-bit armv8 are very rare)
125 2018-04-09 14:55:57	0|wumpus|ah, nice
126 2018-04-09 14:56:20	0|jonasschnelli|I guess Odroids XU4 and HC2 are 32 bit armv7?
127 2018-04-09 14:56:47	0|jonasschnelli|Not sure if the have NI crc32
128 2018-04-09 14:57:54	0|jonasschnelli|Don't have access until Thursday to the machine... so no /proc/cpuinto right now
129 2018-04-09 14:59:02	0|wumpus|armv7 never has crc32
130 2018-04-09 14:59:16	0|jonasschnelli|Just read that up... v8 is min, right.
131 2018-04-09 14:59:28	0|jonasschnelli|v8.1-A AFAIK
132 2018-04-09 15:16:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #12924: Fix hdmaster-key / seed-key confusion (scripted diff) (06master...06master_key_to_seed) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12924
133 2018-04-09 15:20:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #12094: Fix hdmaster-key / seed-key confusion (06master...062018/01/hdseed) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12094
134 2018-04-09 15:33:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/603975b96a15...a7cbe38ae2dd
135 2018-04-09 15:33:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b86730a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: util: Remove designator initializer from ScheduleBatchPriority...
136 2018-04-09 15:33:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cff66e6 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: util: Pass pthread_self() to pthread_setschedparam instead of 0...
137 2018-04-09 15:33:36	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a7cbe38 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12923: util: Pass pthread_self() to pthread_setschedparam instead of 0...
138 2018-04-09 15:34:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12923: util: Pass pthread_self() to pthread_setschedparam instead of 0 (06master...062018_04_pthread_self) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12923
139 2018-04-09 16:15:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Empact closed pull request #12921: Make use of cpuid.h bit definitions (06master...06cpuid-bits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12921
140 2018-04-09 16:22:18	0|promag|it it me or CWalletTx::GetRequestCount() is not used?
141 2018-04-09 16:29:29	0|instagibbs|promag, src/interface/wallet.cpp:95:    result.request_count = wtx.GetRequestCount();
142 2018-04-09 16:29:47	0|promag|rigth, but request_count is not used
143 2018-04-09 16:30:03	0|promag|oh sorry, it is
144 2018-04-09 16:30:20	0|promag|my bad :/
145 2018-04-09 16:30:23	0|instagibbs|np
146 2018-04-09 16:52:59	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #12925: [Trivial] Logprint the start of a rescan (06master...062018/04/rescan) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12925
147 2018-04-09 17:20:57	0|jamesob|now that we're not supporting Python2, can we start adding function (type) annotations to functional test code? I think that'll help make the test framework a bit easier to use
148 2018-04-09 17:30:20	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a7cbe38ae2dd...0700b6f778d9
149 2018-04-09 17:30:21	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14398c6f0 15Russell Yanofsky: Update walletdb comment after renaming....
150 2018-04-09 17:30:21	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ea23945 15Russell Yanofsky: scripted-diff: Rename wallet database classes...
151 2018-04-09 17:30:22	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149b0f0c5 15Russell Yanofsky: Add m_ prefix to WalletBatch::m_batch
152 2018-04-09 17:30:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11851: scripted-diff: Rename wallet database classes (06master...06pr/wren) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11851
153 2018-04-09 17:31:42	0|wumpus|jamesob: I guess so
154 2018-04-09 17:33:29	0|jamesob|I'm thinking particularly for arguments in util functions like "pubkey" and "blockhash" which are pretty ambiguous
155 2018-04-09 17:42:01	0|wumpus|I've never used type annotations in python so I don't know how useful they are
156 2018-04-09 17:45:50	0|jamesob|the use is pretty limited out of the box; they're like more succinct docstrings. there are third-party tools that do verification, though I've never used any of them
157 2018-04-09 18:18:52	0|wumpus|I'd say make an example PR where you change a few functions, then see how the review goes
158 2018-04-09 18:38:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fab9095 15MarcoFalke: qa: Windows fixups for functional tests
159 2018-04-09 18:38:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0700b6f778d9...cf8073f8d1d1
160 2018-04-09 18:38:16	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cf8073f 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12917: qa: Windows fixups for functional tests...
161 2018-04-09 18:39:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12917: qa: Windows fixups for functional tests (06master...06Mf1804-qaWinFixups) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12917
162 2018-04-09 19:25:59	0|jamesob|wumpus: sounds good
163 2018-04-09 20:35:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #12926: Run unit tests in parallel (06master...06201804_parunit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12926
164 2018-04-09 20:55:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15trulex opened pull request #12927: Docs: fixed link, replaced QT with Qt (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12927
165 2018-04-09 21:27:57	0|jnewbery|wumpus: I'm adding #12892 as high priority for review. Please go ahead and remove it if you don't think it merits that.
166 2018-04-09 21:27:59	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12892 | [wallet] [rpc] introduce label API for wallet by jnewbery · Pull Request #12892 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
167 2018-04-09 21:28:48	0|jnewbery|oh, looks like I'm not allowed to. It needs triage into one of the columns
168 2018-04-09 23:09:11	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1423abfb7 15Steve Lee: added logging line back that was accidentally removed with #10762
169 2018-04-09 23:09:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cf8073f8d1d1...7ee6fc58f87b
170 2018-04-09 23:09:12	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147ee6fc5 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12845: Trivial: Add logging line in init.cpp that was accidentally removed with #10762...
171 2018-04-09 23:09:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12845: Trivial: Add logging line in init.cpp that was accidentally removed with #10762 (06master...06add_logging_line_to_newer_branch) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12845
172 2018-04-09 23:11:01	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147039319 15Darko Janković: Docs: fixed link, replaced QT with Qt
173 2018-04-09 23:11:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7ee6fc58f87b...06ead15050f5
174 2018-04-09 23:11:02	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1406ead15 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12927: Docs: fixed link, replaced QT with Qt...
175 2018-04-09 23:11:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12927: Docs: fixed link, replaced QT with Qt (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12927
176 2018-04-09 23:12:17	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1475d0e4c 15Suhas Daftuar: [qa] Delete cookie file before starting node...
177 2018-04-09 23:12:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/06ead15050f5...727175a08dff
178 2018-04-09 23:12:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14727175a 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12902: [qa] Handle potential cookie race when starting node...
179 2018-04-09 23:13:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12902: [qa] Handle potential cookie race when starting node (06master...062018-04-improve-dbcrash-restarts) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12902
180 2018-04-09 23:26:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #12928: qt: Initialize variables previously neither defined where defined nor in constructor (06master...06qt-constructors) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12928