< dcousens> sipa: boo C++ lol
< dcousens> What was the original motivations for const members in CTransaction?
< luke-jr> dcousens: I was wondering that myself, actually. I think it might have been to cache the hash, but with as much overhead as it seems to be taking now, I wonder if we might be better off with just literally caching it..
< dcousens> luke-jr: if not even through some auxillary lazy datastructure that has just the [possibly computed] hash and the underlying TX
< luke-jr> that's what I mean
< luke-jr> clear a bool when data is changed, and set it when we update the cached hash
< luke-jr> possibly threading issues though, not sure
< dcousens> I know it would definitely be measurable, but I wonder how significant the performance difference is to no cached tx->getHash
< dcousens> and, if highly significant, whether a localized solution would be better
< dcousens> (aka, localized to the problem where it occurs, not just 'in general')
< GitHub97> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8618: [WIP] Erase orphans only when banned (master...EraseOrphansOnlyWhenBanned) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8618
< GitHub48> [bitcoin] rebroad reopened pull request #8484: [WIP] More granular debug (master...MoreGranularDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8484
< GitHub120> [bitcoin] rebroad opened pull request #8622: [WIP] Clarify variable names (master...ClarifyVariableNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8622
< GitHub45> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8622: [WIP] Clarify variable names (master...ClarifyVariableNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8622
< GitHub148> [bitcoin] rebroad reopened pull request #8622: [WIP] Clarify variable names (master...ClarifyVariableNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8622
< GitHub128> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8571: [WIP] Disconnect when a node doesn't offer the relevant services. (master...UnexpectedServicesNoDisconnect) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8571
< GitHub7> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8622: [WIP] Clarify variable names (master...ClarifyVariableNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8622
< GitHub57> [bitcoin] rebroad reopened pull request #8622: [WIP] Clarify variable names (master...ClarifyVariableNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8622
< GitHub97> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8622: [WIP] Clarify variable names (master...ClarifyVariableNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8622
< GitHub13> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8484: [WIP] More granular debug (master...MoreGranularDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8484
< GitHub6> [bitcoin] rebroad reopened pull request #8484: [WIP] More granular debug (master...MoreGranularDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8484
< GitHub184> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8484: [WIP] More granular debug (master...MoreGranularDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8484
< GitHub129> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke reopened pull request #8484: [WIP] More granular debug (master...MoreGranularDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8484
< GitHub171> [bitcoin] rebroad reopened pull request #8622: [WIP] Clarify variable names (master...ClarifyVariableNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8622
< GitHub64> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8622: [WIP] Clarify variable names (master...ClarifyVariableNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8622
< GitHub190> [bitcoin] daddinuz opened pull request #8623: chainparams: Added parametric halving interval for regtest-only mode (master...parametric_halving_interval) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8623
< GitHub120> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8624: [doc] build: Mention curl (master...Mf1608-docCurl) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8624
< * luke-jr> emails rebroad suggesting he move at least some of his questions/comments to IRC.
< btcdrak> I was thinking the same,
< sipa> likewise
< sipa> maybe suggest that if he doesn't fully understand what the code is doing, his first reaction shouldn't be to go change it, but that PRs that just add comments to explain how/why things work would be welcome
< btcdrak> yes it is much easier to ask quickly on IRC to get clarity or direction.
< GitHub161> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a5bb6387f751...01680195f8aa
< GitHub161> bitcoin/master beef966 Jonas Schnelli: [Wallet] remove unused code/conditions in ReadAtCursor
< GitHub161> bitcoin/master 0168019 Pieter Wuille: Merge #8564: [Wallet] remove unused code/conditions in ReadAtCursor...
< GitHub199> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #8564: [Wallet] remove unused code/conditions in ReadAtCursor (master...2016/08/bdb_abstraction_1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8564
< GitHub154> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/01680195f8aa...de07fdcf77e9
< GitHub154> bitcoin/master b729fcd Luke Dashjr: Include instructions to extract Mac OS X SDK on Linux using 7zip and SleuthKit
< GitHub154> bitcoin/master de07fdc Pieter Wuille: Merge #8617: Include instructions to extract Mac OS X SDK on Linux using 7zip and SleuthKit...
< GitHub24> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #8617: Include instructions to extract Mac OS X SDK on Linux using 7zip and SleuthKit (master...gitian_osx_extractor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8617
< GitHub160> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/de07fdcf77e9...89de1538ce1f
< GitHub160> bitcoin/master fae6bb8 MarcoFalke: [doc] build: Mention curl
< GitHub160> bitcoin/master 89de153 Pieter Wuille: Merge #8624: [doc] build: Mention curl...
< GitHub32> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #8478: Ubuntu 14.04 server installs w/o curl (master...patch-3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8478
< GitHub97> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #8624: [doc] build: Mention curl (master...Mf1608-docCurl) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8624
< instagibbs> do we want backport of feeler connections for 0.13.1?
< sipa> i'd like to
< instagibbs> oh whoops, already marked
< instagibbs> I think it's a good idea
< sipa> but 0.13.1 is starting to look like a pretty big change
< gmaxwell> I think we should, because it will offset some of the peering loss, due to selective witness peering. At least it's a very small change.
< instagibbs> I did some review of it couple days ago, it's quite small indeed
< reveredge> anyone
< sipa> no