--- Log opened Sun May 17 00:00:23 2020
00:04 -!- dfmbbtc [~dfmb_@unaffiliated/dfmb/x-4009105] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:06 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.165.91.121] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:07 -!- dfmb_ [~dfmb_@unaffiliated/dfmb/x-4009105] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:19 -!- dfmb_btc [~dfmb_@unaffiliated/dfmb/x-4009105] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:22 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:22 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Client Quit]
00:22 -!- dfmbbtc [~dfmb_@unaffiliated/dfmb/x-4009105] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
00:26 -!- marcoagner [~user@2001:8a0:6a5f:a900:6d3e:1158:b50:97b6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:35 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:35 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Client Quit]
00:35 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:35 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Client Quit]
00:36 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:40 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:41 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:42 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:42 -!- tmoc [~textual@c-73-41-135-128.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
00:43 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Client Quit]
00:43 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:17 -!- promag [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:18 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:21 -!- promag [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
01:31 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:44 -!- per [~per@gateway/tor-sasl/wsm] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:44 -!- per [~per@gateway/tor-sasl/wsm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:50 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:51 -!- surja795 [~surja795@c-24-61-194-104.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:52 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:55 -!- surja795 [~surja795@c-24-61-194-104.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:56 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:58 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@stratum0/entity/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:00 -!- ramsey1 [~ramsey@217.138.197.102] has quit []
02:03 -!- shigeya [~shigeya@2001:19f0:7001:3486:5400:1ff:fe90:4da6] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.6.5+deb1+deb9u2 - http://znc.in]
02:04 -!- shigeya [~shigeya@202.182.116.58] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:07 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:10 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
02:12 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:20 -!- Alphi [~Alphi@139.28.218.198] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:37 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@stratum0/entity/emilengler] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
02:47 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@stratum0/entity/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:01 < jonatack> tryphe: i think the review club is to help contributors learn about the review process and participate in it
03:03 -!- promag [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:03 < jonatack> as for the need for a testing label: ACKs are normally followed by a description of how the reviewer did the review, including testing (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review)
03:05 < jonatack> (though that somewhat newer guideline isn't necessarily followed). I don't think we have an oversupply of testing and reviewing.
03:05 -!- Jaycee66Ryan [~Jaycee66R@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:10 -!- Jaycee66Ryan [~Jaycee66R@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
03:13 < jonatack> sipa: good point, i added your code review ack description to https://jonatack.github.io/articles/how-to-review-pull-requests-in-bitcoin-core#peer-review
03:15 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:21 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Quit: jonatack]
03:21 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:41 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:11 < meshcollider> In my opinion, code review ACK is just the more descriptive version of utACK, and that any form of ACK (including tACK) is implicitly a concept ACK unless stated otherwise
04:17 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:19 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:19 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:21 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:22 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:24 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:25 -!- promag [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:26 -!- promag [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:33 < jonatack> meshcollider: this is how i have been using it as well. the more specific version had not occurred to me, but it strikes me as more useful. if i'm not the only one who read it this way then it may be useful to disambiguate it.
04:36 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@stratum0/entity/emilengler] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:43 -!- surja795 [~surja795@c-24-61-194-104.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:00 -!- Alphi [~Alphi@139.28.218.198] has quit []
05:14 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:21 -!- smibarber [~smibarber@217.138.197.102] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:21 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:21 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 5 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f8123d483caa...dc5333d31f28
05:21 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c0bbf81 practicalswift: tests: Fill fuzzing coverage gaps for functions in primitives/block.h
05:21 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b74f3d6 practicalswift: tests: Fill fuzzing coverage gaps for functions in consensus/validation.h
05:21 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fb559c1 practicalswift: tests: Fill fuzzing coverage gaps for functions in util/translation.h
05:21 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
05:22 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:22 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18938: tests: Fill fuzzing coverage gaps for functions in consensus/validation.h, primitives/block.h and util/translation.h (master...fuzzers-misc-5) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18938
05:22 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
05:25 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:28 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:29 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:49 -!- Technoprenerd [~Technopre@212.182.169.185] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
05:58 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:05 < michaelfolkson> jonatack: This isn't the guidance in the CONTRIBUTING doc. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review
06:06 < michaelfolkson> I thought the whole motivation for the change in wording last year was to make it more standardized and less convoluted. 
06:07 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: this is what i meant above with "(though that somewhat newer guideline isn't necessarily followed)"
06:08 < michaelfolkson> Well they should be right? What is the point of guidelines if no one follows them?
06:08 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: we're discussing what is seen in practice... "code review ack" is used frequently
06:09 < michaelfolkson> If we want to get BitcoinACKs back up and other tools/analytics we need people to understand the guidelines and follow those guidelines
06:09 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: this is open source...
06:09 < michaelfolkson> Ok let's ditch the guidelines then
06:10 < michaelfolkson> I don't think guidance docs like the one you put together should be encouraging things that aren't in the guidelines
06:13 < jonatack> i update it often to reflect actual practice, it's not intended to be a copy of contributing.md. you are free to write your own document. this is open source.
06:13 < michaelfolkson> That makes things really confusing if two different docs tell you to do two different things
06:15 < michaelfolkson> Perhaps ditch the style guidelines too if this is open source. I don't mean to be flippant but "this is open source so feel free not to follow guidelines" seems bizarre to me
06:18 < jonatack> observing and discussing actual practice is different, in my view, from proposing to ditch guidelines, which can still be helpful
06:18 < jonatack> i'm not really interested in debating that
06:21 < michaelfolkson> As long you appreciate downsides. You can't one day talk about why BitcoinACKs doesn't effectively work and the next day encourage flexibility around the review wordings people use
06:21 -!- thomasb06 [2ec100e0@eth-west-pareq2-46-193-0-224.wb.wifirst.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:21 < michaelfolkson> I don't know. I don't want to discuss it either but I am more confused after this conversation than I was before it started. Let's leave it
06:22 -!- Relis [~Relis@cpc96290-lewi18-2-0-cust910.2-4.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:22 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:23 < jonatack> i'm doing neither of those things, i think? bitcoinacks could be updated occasionally when practices evolve. i'm not advocating about current practices, simply looking to understand them
06:29 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:33 -!- Relis [~Relis@cpc96290-lewi18-2-0-cust910.2-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
07:05 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
07:08 -!- Relis [~Relis@cpc96290-lewi18-2-0-cust910.2-4.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:10 -!- owowo [~ovovo@s91904424.blix.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:10 -!- owowo [~ovovo@s91904424.blix.com] has quit [Changing host]
07:10 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:16 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:21 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:22 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:26 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@ip72-204-155-64.no.no.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:39 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:41 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:41 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18996: net: Remove un-actionable TODO (master...2005-netNoTodo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18996
07:41 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
07:44 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:47 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
07:50 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:56 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
07:59 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:59 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:59 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18997: gui: Remove un-actionable TODO (master...2005-guiNoTodo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18997
07:59 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
08:00 -!- smibarber [~smibarber@217.138.197.102] has quit []
08:02 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:03 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:07 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:07 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:09 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:12 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:13 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:13 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:14 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:21 -!- mattl1 [~mattl@178.162.212.214] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:35 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@stratum0/entity/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:00 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:05 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
09:13 -!- Relis [~Relis@cpc96290-lewi18-2-0-cust910.2-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
09:20 -!- vasild_ [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:21 -!- Highway62 [~Thunderbi@104.129.24.50] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:21 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@ip72-204-155-64.no.no.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:21 -!- Highway62 is now known as Highway61
09:23 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:23 -!- vasild_ is now known as vasild
09:26 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex]
09:27 -!- Relis [~Relis@cpc96290-lewi18-2-0-cust910.2-4.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:38 < tryphe> jonatack, meshcollider, thanks!
09:43 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:43 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18999: 2005 log rpc password (master...2005-logRpcPassword) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18999
09:43 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
09:45 < tryphe> another question about review though. is there a general need for tested ACKs other than from reviewers? i guess what i mean is, is testing and reviewing seen as more mutually exclusive, where everyone testing a PR is seen beneficial, beyond reviewer testing?
09:46 < michaelfolkson> On your previous question tryphe I would say follow the guidelines as much as possible https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review
09:46 < instagibbs> tryphe, code reviewing and testing are two separate things generally
09:47 < instagibbs> for instance some PRs I just don't have time/interest/knowledge to review the code well, but I know how to test how users are expected to use it, try to trip it up, etc. Both are valuable.
09:48 < sipa> i'd say that the need for manual testing goes down the more testable (through unit or functional or fuzz tests) it is
09:48 < sipa> and the latter is certainly preferable
09:49 < sipa> so the distinction between "ack, tested" and "ack, didn't test anything myself but the included tests look sufficient"
09:49 < sipa> is not always so big
09:49 < tryphe> michaelfolkson, yep, i took a look, but i wasn't sure if tACKS were inherently concept ACKs or not, or if both should be done
09:50 < tryphe> i guess maybe that should be added? it seems like newer people might get thrown off by that
09:50 < michaelfolkson> tryphe: I think generally if you are taking the time to review the code you are a Concept ACK or you think the Concept ACK has consensus. Otherwise why review the code?
09:51 < michaelfolkson> tryphe: But you can Concept NACK and ACK a commit in the same comment if you are in that situation
09:51 < sipa> indeed
09:51 < sipa> but you may be indifferent about the concept
09:51 < tryphe> michaelfolkson, suppose you are feeling neutral about the concept, reviewed the code, but want to leave the concept ack to other people to decide
09:51 < tryphe> yeah what sipa said
09:52 < sipa> "Code review ACK <commitid>, unsure about the concept"
09:52 < sipa> You're always welcome to elaborate more on your opinion.
09:53 < michaelfolkson> The guideline is ACK <commitid> rather than Code review ACK <commitid> 
09:53 < michaelfolkson> Obviously you can write whatever you want after ACK <commitid> to explain in greater detail exactly what you have reviewed
09:53 < michaelfolkson> That's the current guideline (as I can make out)
09:55 < tryphe> that makes sense, thanks
09:55 < sipa> for example other useful things to add are "verified move only" if the PR includes move-only commits, and things like "thought hard about how the change X could break Y but didn't find any"
09:56 < tryphe> i had found myself going through a bunch of historical commits to try and find a theme but it seems like everyone has their own preference of style, i think that might deter newer folks from jumping right in, unsure about what they've seen vs. what they interpret the guidelines as
09:56 < tryphe> i mean, just as an observation
09:57 < sipa> yeah, that's certainly possible
09:57 < michaelfolkson> Maybe. I am happy to be one of those annoying people who badger people to follow the guidelines ;)
09:57 < michaelfolkson> We certainly need those richer comments that sipa lays out too. Hopefully we can get best of both worlds
09:57 < tryphe> not nitpicking the guidelines or anything, i just wish it was easier to parse i guess, but can't really suggest any improvments
09:58 < jonatack> i think this was the last time recently where i reviewed the code before the concept ack https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18962#issuecomment-627635800
09:58 < michaelfolkson> It is good feedback. I think the guidelines are good. Just need to try to get people to follow them I think
09:59 < jonatack> when in doubt adding context doesn't hurt; the shortcuts seem popular because they are just handy
10:00 < tryphe> i see, that makes sense
10:01 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:01 < tryphe> i guess my concern is, to the casual observer or someone who might be a potential tester, seeing the shortcut acks might throw them through a loop about the whole process
10:02 < tryphe> even if they had read the guidelines after, i mean
10:04 < sipa> i think from a new contributor it's even more advisable to be verbose in review comments
10:04 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@104.129.24.50] has quit [Quit: Highway61]
10:10 < michaelfolkson> Makes sense. A long term contributor ACKing a commit without any comment has value. But if a new contributor does the same it is unclear what exactly they have reviewed and if they have truly understood the change
10:10 < sipa> exactly
10:10 < tryphe> ahh yeah
10:11 < tryphe> as someone who has looked over a lot of PRs but never commented much, i always feel like verbose conversation was sort of unwelcome and would clog up the comment feed with chatter instead of acks, but i guess that's completely wrong
10:13 < sipa> i think the most disrupting thing to a PR is getting a multitude of low level/nits/code style comments, while it's very unclear if a PR is desirable as a concept
10:14 < michaelfolkson> Personally I have been quite conservative on when I comment. John Newbery has encouraged me to comment more on PRs having participated in a lot of PR review clubs.
10:14 < michaelfolkson> It is a balance though I think. Often I am trying to understand the conceptual change at a time when it clearly already has consensus on the Concept ACK and the discussion has moved onto the code review
10:15 < michaelfolkson> Definitely do a lot of PR review clubs tryphe and it will start to become clearer where you can add value
10:16 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:16 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:17 < tryphe> thanks. i think i might do that!
10:25 < tryphe> thanks. i think i might do that!
10:25 < tryphe> oops
10:25 < tryphe> when getting into bitcoin PR review i feel like there's this -almost- unscalable mountain in front of you; semi-scalable in terms of "things that i can actually review without much historical bitcoin knowlegde" (NATPMP for example, that was easy, but almost straightforward enough that it requires no comments), but also unscalable parts in terms of other PRs where the motivation was so ingenius that trying to review it almost seems like a 
10:25 < tryphe> fallacy (maybe i understand the motivation conceptually but trying to constructively add to conversation is not possible)
10:26 < tryphe> i guess the almost unscable part becomes scalable over time with much more PRs reviewed though, but to me that's the biggest detterent to newcomers
10:26 < tryphe> hard to constructively comment on low hanging fruit (because it's easy), but overwhelmed when trying to push a boulder, so to speak
10:28 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:30 < tryphe> i guess it seems like there's a lack of middle ground, just a huge disparity between simple changes and huge ones. observationally speaking, anyways.
10:30 < jonatack> re-updated today's update with the suggestions from sipa: https://github.com/jonatack/jonatack.github.io/commit/e050fdd
10:32 < michaelfolkson> Yeah I think that is fair tryphe. It is not easy. But ACKing the more basic PRs and attending the PR review club to understand the more complex ones is the way to go
10:33 < tryphe> michaelfolkson, thanks for that, i'll definitely give it a go. is the review club new, btw? it seems like it wasn't around even a few years ago, or maybe i'm just ignorant
10:34 < sipa> tryphe: it just celebrated its 1 year anniversary
10:34 < jonatack> tryphe: jnewbery launched it began a year ago. it's sort of like an online version of the chaincode labs seminars.
10:35 < tryphe> that's pretty cool
10:35 < tryphe> there's such a large following now it almost seems like it existed longer
10:35 < michaelfolkson> jonatack: Looks good apart from code review ACK. As I said before the guideline is ACK <commitid> and then comment e.g. Reviewed the code. 
10:36 < michaelfolkson> We have no hope of people following guidelines if guidelines aren't clear and inconsistent between documents
10:36 < tryphe> existed/had to exist*
10:36 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: thanks for reviewing, will look at it tomorrow with fresh eyes
10:37 < michaelfolkson> At this point your doc is the most useful doc out there. Important to get it right in my view
10:39 < jonatack> 👍
10:50 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:53 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:59 < tryphe> what do you guys think of the PR-comment reaction emojis on github? is it generally useless to thumbs up the first message in a conversation, but okay to thumbs up a comment that you agree with but don't care to comment on?
10:59 < tryphe> or is it better to just reply?
11:00 -!- mattl1 [~mattl@178.162.212.214] has quit []
11:00 < tryphe> i was just curious if anyone used the emojis as a metric or if it's just purely visual in terms of review
11:02 < tryphe> ie. maybe sometimes emojis would be preferred, or maybe it's just seen as a dumb idea
11:05 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:06 < tryphe> in some ways i think it's hard to parse if someone gave an edited comment a thumbs up, because it's hard to know which version of the comment they approved of, but otoh replying to a full copy of a message every time seems spammy
11:08 < jonatack> tryphe: on github projects with a small number of collaborators i think they are fun; on more widely-watched ones like bitcoin core i tend to not use them to avoid it turning into a social media or slack feed. using an emoji inside a comment, sure. worked more ideas into the doc from all three of you, thanks!
11:09 < tryphe> lol, good point :)
11:10 -!- tmoc [~textual@c-73-41-135-128.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:10 < gleb> tryphe: I like emojis and use them for different purposes. But at the same time I don't assume that everybody looks at them. So if I really need to say that I agree, I'd rather make an explicit message.
11:10 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:11 < michaelfolkson> tryphe: Emojis definitely aren't used as a formal metric. I find them useful to see whether people are enthusiastic or not about a comment without them needing to add unnecessary comments
11:12 < michaelfolkson> tryphe: Agree with gleb. If you have something important to say it needs a comment. If you don't have much to say but like/dislike a comment some people (e.g. gleb and me) take notice ;)
11:13 < jonatack> hm, i do use the heart emoji to say thanks to people sometimes for reviewing
11:14 < tryphe> ahh, good point. yeah i think in some sense emojis are somewhat redundant other than a simple "i agree but no comment needed"
11:14 < michaelfolkson> I only realized recently when Marco commented that too many unnecessary comments is a problem. Makes reviewers life more difficult because GitHub starts hiding important review comments
11:15 < michaelfolkson> So that makes emojis useful. You don't want lots of "Yes I agree with the above comment" statements
11:15 < sipa> Unfortunately, emoji are also mostly anonymous.
11:16 < michaelfolkson> No you can hover over it and see who posted the emoji?
11:16 < sipa> sure
11:16 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:16 < sipa> that's why i say mostly
11:16 < sipa> but it's not clear at a first glance who liked/agreed/disliked
11:17 < sipa> and when a comment gets brigaded by random people because someone linked it on social media, it becomes entirely worthless
11:17 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:18 < michaelfolkson> Yup. Definitely flawed but generally maintains some limited value in most cases
11:18 < tryphe> yeah, after a certain threshold it just becomes "alice, bob, jane, and X more reacted"
11:20 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:22 -!- Bjarki [~Bjarki@217.146.82.122] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:22 < tryphe> i think in the future if you had a historical archive of PRs the "X more reacted" might pollute things a little bit, because you don't get to see all participants
11:22 < tryphe> and maybe some reviewers would get washed out by mass emoji-ers
11:24 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
11:24 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
11:40 -!- surja795 [~surja795@c-24-61-194-104.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:40 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:50 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:52 -!- Henry151_ is now known as Henry151
11:56 -!- surja795 [~surja795@c-24-61-194-104.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:02 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:06 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:11 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
12:30 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:30 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:45 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:58 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@104.129.24.50] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:03 -!- thomasb06 [2ec100e0@eth-west-pareq2-46-193-0-224.wb.wifirst.net] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
13:05 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:14 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:21 -!- Emcy [~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:22 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:27 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:39 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@stratum0/entity/emilengler] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:43 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:50 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex]
13:59 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-78-197-156.dyn.295.ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:00 -!- Bjarki [~Bjarki@217.146.82.122] has quit []
14:19 -!- IOMonster1 [~IOMonster@217.146.82.122] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:31 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:35 -!- manantial [~tecnecio_@unaffiliated/manantial] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
14:39 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:39 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] 10xcryptodev opened pull request #19001: qt: bugfix unsupported QLocale languages (master...202005-bugfix-qlocale) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19001
14:39 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
14:45 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:49 -!- geeker [~geeker@120.244.46.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:50 -!- inoor [~inoor@c-73-25-245-244.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:50 -!- inoor [~inoor@c-73-25-245-244.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
14:56 -!- dfmb_btc [~dfmb_@unaffiliated/dfmb/x-4009105] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:09 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:11 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)]
15:17 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:19 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:22 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:26 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:31 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:31 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #18977: [DONTMERGE] Test ranked_index (master...202005_try_ranked) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18977
15:31 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
15:34 -!- marcoagner [~user@2001:8a0:6a5f:a900:6d3e:1158:b50:97b6] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
15:39 -!- dfmb_ [~dfmb_@unaffiliated/dfmb/x-4009105] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:01 -!- go121212 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:02 -!- dfmb_ [~dfmb_@unaffiliated/dfmb/x-4009105] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:04 -!- go11111111111 [~go1111111@104.156.98.86] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:06 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:13 < shesek> why does `gettransaction` only list the fee for "send" transactions? is doing this for incoming transactions problematic for some reason, or just not implemented yet?
16:15 < sipa> yes, your wallet does not know the input value of non-wallet tx inputs
16:16 < shesek> I meant specifically for `gettransaction`, which is for wallet transactions only
16:16 < sipa> yes, but the inputs of a transaction that pays you are not yours
16:16 < shesek> bitcoin-qt does seem to somehow get it
16:16 < sipa> so your wallet does not know about them
16:17 < shesek> it does know them at validation time though, couldn't this get persisted alongside the other wallet tx information?
16:18 < sipa> it could :)
16:18 < sipa> but conceptually it doesn't really make sense; gettransaction shows the effect of a tx on your wallet
16:18 < sipa> you're not the one paying the fee
16:19 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:19 < sipa> but sure, it could be persisted
16:19 < shesek> its useful for incoming payments to know how likely they are to get confirmed. its something that a wallet gui should probably be displaying
16:20 < sipa> yeah, that makes sense
16:20 < shesek> does bitcoin-qt not show the fee of confirmed incoming transactions (ie where the spent prevouts are no longer in the utxo set)?
16:20 < shesek> I haven't used the gui in ages >_<
16:22 < shesek> how about including the "fee" in the `{get,list}transaction` rpcs for unconfirmed transactions only? the fee is really only useful for them, and it could be deducted by a pruning node
16:27 < sipa> i think it's cleaner to persist the fee in the wallet
16:27 < sipa> otherwise the wallet needs access to the utxo set
16:27 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:28 < shesek> how does this work for outgoing transactions? persisted in the wallet?
16:29 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:30 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:33 < sipa> for outgoing transactions (at least when they're not coinjoins), you have the inputs anyway
16:35 < shesek> ah, so it wouldn't report a fee if any of the inputs are not from the wallet? this should probably get documented
16:36 < shesek> maybe something like "This is negative and only available for the 'send' category of transactions when all inputs are owned by the wallet."
16:42 < sipa> if it's persisted in the wallet it would work for every transaction
16:47 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:56 < shesek> well, sign me up as someone eagerly waiting for this :)
16:57 < sipa> the best way to make it happen is to implement it :)
16:57 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:57 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:58 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:00 -!- IOMonster1 [~IOMonster@217.146.82.122] has quit []
17:00 < shesek> I'm afraid that I'm probably not the the right person for the job, but I will happily help with testing. :) but yes, sorry, I know that making these requests without offering any help implementing them is not very useful. bitcoin core has plenty of features that could be added if someone with the expertise and time prioritized them
17:02 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
17:05 -!- SiAnDoG_ [~514nDoG@gateway/tor-sasl/siandog] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:05 < shesek> and to make yet another not very useful request: it is somewhat annoying that `listtransactions` doesn't list the block height directly, but only the block hash and number of confirmations. it would typically mean that you'll need an extra rpc request per transaction to figure the height out (that's what electrum-personal-server does for example)
17:05 < shesek> I hacked around it in a different way - I first check the tip, then fetch `listtransactions`, then make sure the tip hasn't moved in the meanwhile (and retry if it did), then calculate the block height is tip_height-confirmations+1. which isn't very ideal either :)
17:05 -!- SiAnDoG_ [~514nDoG@gateway/tor-sasl/siandog] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:20 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:22 -!- dhaumann [~dhaumann@195.206.169.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:28 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
17:31 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:38 < luke-jr> sipa: it might make sense to show the sum of fees pushing for unconfirmed transactions
17:38 < luke-jr> ie, including descendants in it
17:39 -!- rottensox [~rottensox@unaffiliated/rottensox] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:39 -!- rottensox [~rottensox@unaffiliated/rottensox] has left #bitcoin-core-dev ["Bye"]
17:43 -!- surja795 [~surja795@c-24-61-194-104.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:44 -!- surja795 [~surja795@c-24-61-194-104.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:16 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:16 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:21 -!- Relis [~Relis@cpc96290-lewi18-2-0-cust910.2-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
18:22 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
18:22 -!- Relis [~Relis@cpc96290-lewi18-2-0-cust910.2-4.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:24 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:24 < kanzure> shesek: document in a ticket
18:28 -!- per [~per@gateway/tor-sasl/wsm] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:36 -!- go11111111111 [~go1111111@104.156.98.86] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:39 -!- go121212 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
18:41 -!- go121212 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:44 -!- go11111111111 [~go1111111@104.156.98.86] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
18:48 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:53 -!- geeker [~geeker@221.179.156.57] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:53 -!- geeker [~geeker@221.179.156.57] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:54 -!- geeker [~geeker@221.179.156.57] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:54 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:56 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:56 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] shesek opened pull request #19002: docs: Document that 'fee' is unavailable when there are non-wallet inputs (master...202005-docs-fee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19002
18:56 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
18:56 < shesek> kanzure, ^
19:31 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
19:34 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:37 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:38 -!- shesek [~shesek@185.3.145.28] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:38 -!- shesek [~shesek@185.3.145.28] has quit [Changing host]
19:38 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:52 -!- surja795 [~surja795@c-24-61-194-104.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:00 -!- dhaumann [~dhaumann@195.206.169.238] has quit []
20:17 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
20:20 -!- jeremyb [~jeremyb@195.206.169.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:21 -!- jeremyb is now known as Guest18050
20:31 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:38 -!- Relis [~Relis@cpc96290-lewi18-2-0-cust910.2-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
20:57 -!- Eagle[TM] [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:59 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
21:07  * luke-jr prods people to review #17946 <.<
21:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17946 | Fix GBT: Restore "!segwit" and "csv" to "rules" key by luke-jr · Pull Request #17946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
21:08 < luke-jr> (apparently this bug is causing segwit transactions to not get mined)
21:12 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:12 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:12 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:12 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:15 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:15 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:17 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-9-247.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
21:20 -!- vasild_ [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:23 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:23 -!- vasild_ is now known as vasild
21:27 -!- go11111111111 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:29 -!- go121212 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
21:31 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:32 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:53 -!- TheHoliestRoger [~TheHolies@unaffiliated/theholiestroger] has quit [Quit: Find me in #TheHolyRoger or https://theholyroger.com]
21:54 -!- TheHoliestRoger [~TheHolies@unaffiliated/theholiestroger] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:59 < shesek> luke-jr, you helped convince me to avoid reporting a fee for incoming payments altogether, this is indeed pretty useless without taking parent and child fees into account as well. saved me a bunch work, thanks :p
22:02 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:05 -!- tmoc [~textual@c-73-41-135-128.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
22:06 -!- tmoc [~textual@c-73-41-135-128.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:06 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:12 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:19 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
22:23 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-240-159.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
22:32 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-240-159.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:38 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:47 -!- cryptapus [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:00 -!- Guest18050 [~jeremyb@195.206.169.238] has quit []
23:12 < hebasto> wumpus: kindly reminder -- is it time to upload rc2 to https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.20.0/ ?
23:15 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:17 -!- Eagle[TM] [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:19 -!- dfmb_ [~dfmb_@unaffiliated/dfmb/x-4009105] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:19 -!- daim2k5 [~daim2k5@185.204.1.185] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:49 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
--- Log closed Mon May 18 00:00:24 2020