< GitHub37> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3e4cf8fe2644...65a9d7dcdcb2
< GitHub37> bitcoin/master 980e7eb Cory Fields: depends: only build qt on linux for x86_64/x86
< GitHub37> bitcoin/master 9d25362 Cory Fields: build: add armhf/aarch64 gitian builds...
< GitHub37> bitcoin/master 65a9d7d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8188: Add armhf/aarch64 gitian builds...
< GitHub135> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8188: Add armhf/aarch64 gitian builds (master...arm-bins) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8188
< GitHub163> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/65a9d7dcdcb2...37c98307ac76
< GitHub163> bitcoin/master b0938a0 fanquake: [trivial][doc] Use Debian 8.5 in the gitian-build guide
< GitHub163> bitcoin/master 37c9830 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8193: [trivial][doc] Use Debian 8.5 in the gitian-build guide...
< GitHub17> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8193: [trivial][doc] Use Debian 8.5 in the gitian-build guide (master...gitian-debian-85) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8193
< GitHub36> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7622: Increase DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE to 1MB (master...increaseDefaultBlockSize) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7622
< GitHub61> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/37c98307ac76...e1486eb95c50
< GitHub61> bitcoin/master 4dc94d1 Alex Morcos: Refactor CreateNewBlock to be a method of the BlockAssembler class
< GitHub61> bitcoin/master a278764 Alex Morcos: FIX: Account for txs already added to block in addPriorityTxs
< GitHub61> bitcoin/master c2dd5a3 Alex Morcos: FIX: correctly measure size of priority block
< GitHub4> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7598: Refactor CreateNewBlock to be a method of the BlockAssembler class (master...BlockAssembler) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7598
< GitHub191> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e1486eb95c50...44c1b1c9bb54
< GitHub191> bitcoin/master 8c9e681 mrbandrews: Tests: Rework blockstore to avoid re-serialization.
< GitHub191> bitcoin/master 291f8aa mrbandrews: Continuing port of java comptool
< GitHub191> bitcoin/master 12c5a16 mrbandrews: Catch exceptions from non-canonical encoding and print only to log
< GitHub75> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8141: Continuing port of java comparison tool (master...ba-comptool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8141
< GitHub191> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 1 new commit to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/384b99e4082cc90d7a92c31a7827ac2fbcfb2eee
< GitHub191> bitcoin/master 384b99e MarcoFalke: [docUpdate git-subtree-check.sh README
< MarcoFalke> fuck
< MarcoFalke> this is bad
< sipa> what happened.
< sipa> ?
< MarcoFalke> GitHub pushed an unsigned commit
< MarcoFalke> I used the web editor to fiddle around
< MarcoFalke> Normally it would do it in my fork but since I have commit access it was doing it in the actual repo
< sipa> i'd say force push to revert it, but you want to coordinate with wumpus who seems to be merging things
< wumpus> I'll do it
< MarcoFalke> wumpus: force push is disabled IIRC
< wumpus> I know, I can override it
< GitHub159> [bitcoin] laanwj force-pushed master from 384b99e to 44c1b1c: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master
< wumpus> back to 44c1b1c9bb54082625c7ad76af25473abf79f866
< sipa> woah, number of issues/prs has exceeded 8192
< btcdrak> sipa: LOL
< sipa> i'd like to see some acks on 7749
< sipa> (the last dependency for segwit)
< wumpus> oh cool, github has a new per-branch setting "Restrict who can push to this branch"
< wumpus> yes, I was going to look at that one next
< wumpus> sipa: last power of 2 before #10000!
< sipa> 10000! is a big number :)
< wumpus> tor is almost at 20000, then again, that project has been running for much longer
< wumpus> trying to compute 10000! as double results in round-to-infinity
< wumpus> luke-jr: now that it's possible to set committers per branch, it'd be possible to give you push access to old branches for maintenance
< btcdrak> nice feature from Github! though isnt some of the problem also about getting enough review on patches to older branches?
< wumpus> well possibly, I mean that's up to the three people that actually use old releases
< wumpus> :<
< btcdrak> even for a maintained branch like 0.11, there isnt sufficient interest in backporting CSV despite the backport being done (and subsequently closed).
< * btcdrak> giggles
< wumpus> well the developers working on master have no time or interest to maintain them, but if luke-jr wants to pick up that task that's ok with me
< wumpus> I wonder if this also means that if we give someone write access to the repository, but no push access to any branch, they can only open/close/edit issues and PRs but not the code
< wumpus> fanquake may still be interested in that
< fanquake> wumpus sorry I think I've missed something here. Interested in what?
< wumpus> <wumpus> I wonder if this also means that if we give someone write access to the repository, but no push access to any branch, they can only open/close/edit issues and PRs but not the code
< fanquake> Ok, yes I would be interested in that; if it's possible, and the rest of the maintainers thought it was appropriate.
< fanquake> Also, is the debug-split.sh that's being generated when compiling now meant to be ignored? Seems like it should be
< GitHub67> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #8197: [trivial] Ignore split-debug.sh (master...ignore-split-debug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8197
< GitHub100> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #8198: [trivial] Sync ax_pthread with upstream draft4 (master...sync-pthread) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8198
< wumpus> yes, I think that should be ignored, good catch
< sipa> fundrawtransaction.py:
< sipa> Initializing test directory /tmp/testerakbjk5/16
< sipa> Mining blocks...
< sipa> JSONRPC error: Insufficient funds
< sipa> Stopping nodes
< fanquake> sipa latest master? I can't recreate "fundrawtransaction.py | True | 69 s"
< sipa> seems to happen about 30% of the time
< sipa> (this is in a branch with 7749 merged, but i don't think that's related)
< sipa> 5 out of 16 runs
< fanquake> I'll run through a few more times, but I've got 9/9 passing.
< fanquake> (just master)
< sipa> trying to bisect
< sipa> i'm seeing the problem as early as 761cddb
< wumpus> you do throw away the cache between runs?
< sipa> the cache is only used when running from rpc-tests, right, not when calling the test individually?
< wumpus> oh, never knew that
< sipa> if you're not sure about it, i better check
< sipa> but the cache is inside the pull-tester directory
< wumpus> I assumed the cache would always be used, if there is a cache directory in your current path
< wumpus> I tend to have cache directories all over the place because I call the tests from different places :p
< sdaftuar> i believe wumpus is right; at least it used to be that the cache would always be used if found, or created if not found (ie if you ran from a different place)
< GitHub39> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8199: Avoid test bug introduced in #7967 (master...fixfund) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8199
< sipa> well i used git bisect, and it reliably found the exact commit that introduced the test
< sipa> i don't know where to look for a cache directory if there is one
< sipa> i run the rpc test from root/qa/rpc-tests/, and there is no cache directory there
< sdaftuar> hm. me either!
< sipa> hmm, i do have a root/cache directory
< sipa> deleting that one and retrying with master
< sdaftuar> oh, i think fundrawtransaction doesn't use a cached chain
< sdaftuar> setup_clean_chain is set to true
< sipa> i'm testing by running ./fundrawtransaction.py 8 times in parallel
< sipa> it fails reliably that way
< sdaftuar> strangely i can't get it to fail locally
< sipa> i've seen the failure also once on travis
< sdaftuar> do you know which line fails in the test, ie which invocation of fundrawtransaction?
< sipa> JSONRPC error: Insufficient funds
< sipa> File "/home/pw/git/bitcoin/qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 144, in main
< sipa> self.run_test()
< sipa> File "./fundrawtransaction.py", line 684, in run_test
< sipa> result = self.nodes[3].fundrawtransaction(rawtx) # uses min_relay_tx_fee (set by settxfee)
< sdaftuar> hm the first one
< sdaftuar> that doesn't seem like a coin selection non-determinism, does it?
< GitHub162> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8200: [Tests] Fix fundrawtransaction feerate test (master...2016/06/fix_frt_test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8200
< sipa> unsure, i haven't looked over the test
< jonasschnelli> ^^ should fix it.
< jonasschnelli> I think the test tend to fail if you play with different input types.
< jonasschnelli> sipa, wait,.. you run into <sipa>JSONRPC error: Insufficient funds?
< sdaftuar> sipa: jonasschnelli: if i print self.nodes[3].getbalance, i see a balance of 20
< sipa> i can add a print
< jonasschnelli> Caching issues? sipa: Do you test on current master?
< sipa> jonasschnelli: i have this problem on every commit ever since the test was introduced
< sdaftuar> jonasschnelli: i believe this test uses a initialize_chain_clean, so there should be no cache issues
< jonasschnelli> strange...
< jonasschnelli> I never saw travis reporting an issue there...
< sipa> it seems very rare on travis
< sipa> maybe something in my setup makes it happen more often
< jonasschnelli> `outputs = {self.nodes[2].getnewaddress() : 1}`
< sipa> note that i'm running the fundrawtransaction 8 time in parallel
< jonasschnelli> could the missing "1.0" be the issue?
< jonasschnelli> 1.0 instead of 1
< sipa> no
< sipa> that wouldn't cause a problem only 30% of the time
< jonasschnelli> Hmm.. maybe a locked input?
< jonasschnelli> I think a self.sync_all()/self.nodes[0].generate(1) might fix it.
< sdaftuar> jonasschnelli: i was just thinking the same thing...
< sipa> jonasschnelli: going to try that
< jonasschnelli> I'll update the PR
< sipa> self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(signedtx["hex"])
< sipa>
< sipa> + self.sync_all()
< sipa> inputs = []
< sipa> outputs = {self.nodes[2].getnewaddress() : 1}
< sipa> is what i'm trying
< sdaftuar> i think you want to do self.nodes[0].generate(1)
< sdaftuar> and then sync again
< jonasschnelli> Better check the PRs code so if it fixes the issue, we can merge that.
< sipa> just sync is not enough
< sipa> worse, with just a sync, it fails 100% of the time...
< * sipa> is confused, and tries with a generate
< sdaftuar> sipa: !
< * sipa> thinks: exponentially distributed transaction relay
< sdaftuar> but... is it failing in the sync itself?
< sdaftuar> or with the same error as before?
< sipa> same error as before
< sipa> including a generate: success
< sdaftuar> ok that's good to hear at least.
< sdaftuar> the conjecture was that earlier invocations to fundrawtransaction selected coins needed for the failing test... so mining those transactions makes more inputs available
< GitHub93> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #8199: Avoid test bug introduced in #7967 (master...fixfund) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8199
< jonasschnelli> sipa: Re bip32: You mentioned if users set -usehd=1 it should detect and abort when running on a non HD wallet.
< jonasschnelli> But `-usehd` default value is 1
< sipa> jonasschnelli: you can still distinguish between explicitly set and not
< jonasschnelli> hmm.. right. Thats a point.
< sipa> mapArgs.count('-usehd')
< sipa> or so
< MarcoFalke> SoftSetBoolArg
< sipa> that's not enough
< sipa> unless we make it a tristate
< MarcoFalke> When the bip32 stuff is merged, we should make sure the test framework still runs the legacy wallet sometimes
< luke-jr> [11:16:13] <wumpus> I wonder if this also means that if we give someone write access to the repository, but no push access to any branch, they can only open/close/edit issues and PRs but not the code <-- that would be handy
< luke-jr> btcdrak: stable branches virtually never get enough testing for a release, but it's sometimes possible to do it as a branch with the "not well-tested" caveat
< GitHub172> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/44c1b1c9bb54...be9711e59707
< GitHub172> bitcoin/master 3764dec Pieter Wuille: Keep addrman's nService bits consistent with outbound observations
< GitHub172> bitcoin/master fc83f18 Pieter Wuille: Verify that outbound connections have expected services
< GitHub172> bitcoin/master 5e7ab16 Pieter Wuille: Only store and connect to NODE_NETWORK nodes
< GitHub8> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7749: Enforce expected outbound services (master...checkservices) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7749
< GitHub142> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8201: [qa] fundrawtransaction: Fix race, assert amounts (master...Mf1606-qaFundraw) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8201
< sipa> jonasschnelli: is testnetbitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch running a filter-capable dns seed?
< sipa> dig x5.testnetbitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch gives no results
< sipa> nor does testnet-seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch