--- Log opened Thu Mar 11 00:00:43 2021
--- Day changed Thu Mar 11 2021
00:00 -!- awesome_doge [~Thunderbi@118-163-120-175.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:01 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
00:31 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:32 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:44 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.171.231.252] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:47 < vasild> "1 ACK" label :)
00:47 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:57 < jnewbery> wumpus: I agree. We know that people and companies use ZMQ so there'd need to be a much stronger reason to remove it than some other people don't like it. If you don't like ZMQ, don't use it.
01:00 < MarcoFalke> I don't think we've ever had issues with ACK spam
01:00 < MarcoFalke> Yes, there are issues where bot click the GitHub approve button
01:00 < MarcoFalke> But that doesn't influence ACKs in any way
01:01 -!- asdlkfjwerpoicvx [~flack@p200300d46f1aca00bf3ee4b0f284a732.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:04 < MarcoFalke> Currently it is impossible to find out whether a pull has at least one ACK without loading the page and going through all comments 
01:04 < fanquake> Any relevant ACK will always have to be within the most recent few comment no?
01:05 < MarcoFalke> Sure, so you'll have to find the most recent commit and then read the comments from there
01:05 < jonatack> My impression was ACK quality > quantity (even CONTRIBUTING.md discusses weighing by merit)
01:05 < MarcoFalke> Of course the number of ACKs doesn't say anything about their quality
01:06 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
01:06 < jonatack> (or quality of feedback... I've invalidated 7 ACKs before to address review feedback)
01:07 < MarcoFalke> We have contributors complain that the pull request process (or what state a pull request is in) is not transparent, so I don't see why an attempt to make it more transparent is rejected so strongly
01:08 < MarcoFalke> bitcoinacks already does that, so the label is just bringing that to the "native GitHub" feel
01:09 < jonatack> The process can sometimes be confusing (what does this mean, what is the appropriate response, etc). It's a human one, after all.
01:10 < jonatack> I don't have an answer to it, though.
01:12 < promag> phantomcircuit: in doc/zmq.md "Therefore, subscribers should validate the received data since it may be out of date, incomplete or even invalid"
01:13 < vasild> MarcoFalke: I like the "1 ACK" label, would it be invalidated by a force-push? Should it be?
01:13 < promag> phantomcircuit: production code should not rely just on zmq, I'd expect people using pubsub zmq would know that
01:14 < vasild> "1 outdated ACK" label :)
01:14 < MarcoFalke> Yes, my idea was to only count the ACKs that are also counted in a merge commit
01:14 < promag> phantomcircuit: but its a great way to avoid frequent polling
01:15 < vasild> so you wrote some script to deduce if a PR has at least one ACK (on the latest topmost commit)?
01:16 < MarcoFalke> the script isn't written yet. It was an idea from yesterday
01:16 < vasild> you did that manually?
01:16 < MarcoFalke> yes, for two pull requests
01:17 < vasild> I think that is (would be) very useful
01:18 < vasild> maybe even (feature creep!) "2 ACKs", "3 ACKs", "many ACKs"
01:18 < promag> sorry guys, but what is the goal of those labels?
01:19 < MarcoFalke> (1) to see in conflicts how many ACKs they have (and how many acks would be invalidated)
01:19 < MarcoFalke> (2) to see if a pull request has $n ACKs and might be ready for merge
01:23 < promag> ty
01:23 < vasild> (3) (maybe that is just me) Sometimes I am in the mood of reviewing pristine PRs (no ACKs yet) and sometimes in the mood of helping with some PR that is on the brink of a merge and may need just one more ACK
01:25 < vasild> ... or sometimes PRs that have numbers that end in ...55 or commits that begin with fa...
01:28 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Quit: reboot to spoil a 104 days uptime]
01:31 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.164.238.119] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:34 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.171.231.252] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
01:36 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.164.238.119] has quit [Quit: jonatack_]
01:36 -!- jungly [~jungly@host-79-55-189-201.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
01:36 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.164.238.119] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:41 -!- JokerAscensionEx [~egp_@2.95.74.168] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:43 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:43 -!- jungly [~jungly@host-79-55-189-201.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:53 -!- tylerchambers [sid477594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-sqrllaewgpvqount] has quit []
01:54 -!- tylerchambers [sid477594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cxosliiltsjbjrvy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:55 < promag> MarcoFalke: how about having a gh project for that? there you would have a auto managed column with cards ordered by "maturity" or so 
02:01 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:11 -!- LRSN [598bdec7@89-139-222-199.bb.netvision.net.il] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:12 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:16 -!- avii [51a74997@151.81-167-73.customer.lyse.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:18 -!- LRSN [598bdec7@89-139-222-199.bb.netvision.net.il] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
02:18 < MarcoFalke> I think the number of ACKs doesn't say how mature a pull is. It also depends on what code the pull is touching
02:19 < MarcoFalke> For example a test-only change with one ACK is likely more mature than a versionbits change with two ACKs
02:20 < MarcoFalke> s/is likely/may be/
02:27 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@024-176-247-182.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
02:41 -!- ivanacostarubio [~ivan@189.172.199.173] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
02:50 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:50 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 13 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/63314b8211d7...767bb7d5c56b
02:50 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a04aac4 Carl Dong: validation: Remove extraneous LoadGenesisBlock function prototype
02:50 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d0de61b Carl Dong: miner: Pass in chainstate to BlockAssembler::CreateNewBlock
02:50 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 46b7f29 Carl Dong: scripted-diff: Invoke CreateNewBlock with chainstate
02:50 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
02:50 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:50 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #21270: [Bundle 4/n] Prune g_chainman usage in validation-adjacent modules (master...2020-09-libbitcoinruntime-v6) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270
02:50 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
02:51 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.164.238.119] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
02:51 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.157.61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:52 -!- az0re [~az0re@gateway/tor-sasl/az0re] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
02:52 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:52 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 12 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/767bb7d5c56b...e828fc8f528d
02:52 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d769b33 fanquake: build: only pass -optimized-tools to qt in debug mode
02:52 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3272e34 Hennadii Stepanov: build: Add xkbcommon 0.8.4
02:52 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 06cd0da fanquake: build: qt 5.12.10
02:52 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
02:52 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:52 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #21376: depends: Qt 5.12.10  (master...qt_5_12_10_enhanced) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21376
02:52 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
02:52 < hebasto> \o/
02:55 -!- mol [mol@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:55 -!- molz_ [mol@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
03:06 -!- ishaqm [~ishaqm@79-66-4-138.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:06 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:10 < promag> MarcoFalke: right, I'm not saying maturity is # of acks, but there could be multiple columns for each sorting criteria
03:13 -!- ircmaxell1 [~ircmaxell@217.146.82.202] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:13 < promag> (#-of-updated-ack x sum-of-label-weigthts) / (1 + #-conflicts)
03:14 < promag> X)
03:18 -!- Jerrold87Gutmann [~Jerrold87@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:29 -!- Robert1 [~Robert@195.140.213.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:29 -!- Jerrold87Gutmann [~Jerrold87@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
03:32 -!- mol_ [mol@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:35 -!- mol [mol@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
03:37 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher
03:39 -!- baldur_ [~baldur@pool-108-30-51-126.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:15 -!- scott-tiger [b0bfc2b1@static-176-191-194-177.ftth.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:16 -!- scott-tiger [b0bfc2b1@static-176-191-194-177.ftth.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
04:19 -!- pergaminho [~Cleber@189.26.121.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:44 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:45 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:48 -!- avii [51a74997@151.81-167-73.customer.lyse.net] has quit [Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)]
--- Log closed Fri Mar 12 00:00:53 2021