< justanot1eruser> Luke-Jr: you should post on reddit
< Luke-Jr> justanotheruser: why?
< justanotheruser> seems like something they'd be interested in
< GitHub58> [bitcoin] kirkalx opened pull request #7458: peers.dat, banlist.dat recreated when missing (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7458
< wumpus> gmaxwell: do you think it makes sense to cherry-pick #7438 into master or will that just complicate getting #7082 merged?
< phantomcircuit> wumpus, one pr per missing thing is probably better
< wumpus> phantomcircuit: 'better' in what sense?
< phantomcircuit> less likely to be confusing
< wumpus> there are already PRs for those issues, I don't think anyone is helped by having another set
< wumpus> for example it divides up the discussion. Having a clearly labeled backport/forwardport PR can also be handy while writing release notes, e.g. if you want to exclude things that are already in the previous branch
< wumpus> in any csae, that was not my question, it is whether that should end up in master at all
< gmaxwell> sure, go ahead, I'll redo 7082 on top of it. I'll have to close and reopen 7082 to modify it anyways.
< wumpus> okay!
< GitHub155> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/196ad6913ff5...3dc3149e6393
< GitHub155> bitcoin/master 5d74309 Pieter Wuille: Get rid of inaccurate ScriptSigArgsExpected...
< GitHub155> bitcoin/master 1e9613a Gregory Maxwell: Do not absolutely protect local peers from eviction....
< GitHub155> bitcoin/master 1e05727 Gregory Maxwell: Decide eviction group ties based on time....
< GitHub84> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7453: [0.13] Missing patches from 0.12 (master...Mf1601-013Forwardports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7453
< GitHub109> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3dc3149e6393...47ac04e8b10e
< GitHub109> bitcoin/master e867561 Jorge Timón: MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain:...
< GitHub109> bitcoin/master 47ac04e Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7311: MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow...
< GitHub132> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7311: MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow (master...consensus-pow-moveonly-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7311
< GitHub188> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/47ac04e8b10e...11d74f6a6b34
< GitHub188> bitcoin/master fa331db MarcoFalke: mempool: Replace maxFeeRate of 10000*minRelayTxFee with maxTxFee
< GitHub188> bitcoin/master fa1193e MarcoFalke: [doxygen] Actually display comment
< GitHub188> bitcoin/master 11d74f6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7084: mempool: Replace maxFeeRate of 10000*minRelayTxFee with maxTxFee...
< GitHub98> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7084: mempool: Replace maxFeeRate of 10000*minRelayTxFee with maxTxFee (master...MarcoFalke-2015-mempoolMaxTxFee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7084
< GitHub111> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #7459: Consensus: Decouple pow.o from util.o (master...consensus-pow-from-util-0.12.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7459
< jtimon> #7311 got merged! opened #7459 as a consequence
< GitHub73> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/11d74f6a6b34...fd13fe7ca01b
< GitHub73> bitcoin/master a3d5eec Jorge Timón: Build: Consensus: Move consensus files from common to its own module/package
< GitHub73> bitcoin/master 4feadec Jorge Timón: Build: Libconsensus: Move libconsensus-ready files to the consensus package
< GitHub68> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7091: Consensus build package (master...consensus-build) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7091
< GitHub73> bitcoin/master cf82d05 Jorge Timón: Build: Consensus: Make libbitcoinconsensus_la_SOURCES fully dynamic and dependend on both crypto and consensus packages...
< jtimon> #7091 got merged! great! (but this one doesn't have a following one, at some point https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/9322c17e65a87c6fb5b9972c84a8e77c7083167a would be a "next step" so it will greatly help me explain the goal of phase 2 in my document)
< * jtimon> knows cfields can improve #7091 by avoiding buidling the consensus files too
< jtimon> s/buidling the consensus files/buidling the consensus files *twice*
< Ylbam> is a core dev around to answer a bitcoincore.org translation related question?
< Ylbam> about 2015-12-10 IRC meeting minutes, it was about BIP68
< Ylbam> ^^ morcos
< Ylbam> I'm trying to understand what is being said in this paragraph of the meeting summary:
< Ylbam> "There's some possible issues with the GUI display of currently locked transactions. If a block gets orphaned and a confirmed input becomes unconfirmed it might make a previous acceptable transaction be evicted by the mempool and you might want to inform the user it is locked (as opposed to not visible)."
< Ylbam> to translate it in french ;)
< Ylbam> Corresponding page on bitcoincore.org : https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2015/12/10/
< Ylbam> I guess it probably relates to this: "Accept nLockTime transactions that finalize in the next block"
< Dream123> the best crane in the world after registration gives you Satoshi 10,000 thousand http://bit.ly/FreeBitcoin_key
< jtimon> anyone knows which line sipa may mean in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7459#issuecomment-178812577 ?
< Ylbam> Ok did my best, PR sent, off to bed now ;)
< jtimon> Ylbam: get sleep, nits will do the rest :p
< Ylbam> yep thanx ;)