< midnightmagic> So, you need to modify the options available and re-ping the others who might want another type of answer.
< gmaxwell> instagibbs: so with these effective amount changes, perhaps what we should also do is have an effective size: e.g. if you are considering spending unconfirmed change from a prior transaction, you should adjust its size to whatever would be needed to CPFP the ancestors up to the rate you're targeting.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/76f268b9bd1b...2e7d8f8b7d98
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c45cbaf Andrew Chow: Fix stopatheight...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2e7d8f8 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10569: Fix stopatheight...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10569: Fix stopatheight (master...fix-stopatheight) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10569
< fanquake> wumpus are you merging a few prs now?
< wumpus> fanquake: possibly, do you have other suggestions?
< fanquake> wumpus Yea there are a few that look ready to go. 1 sec.
< fanquake> 10560 is a easy merge/close.
< fanquake> 10566 is a trivial doc chance.
< fanquake> 10561
< wumpus> thanks
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2e7d8f8b7d98...562caf1c74fd
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3289ef4 practicalswift: Remove unused constant MEMPOOL_GD_VERSION
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dce8239 practicalswift: Comment out unused constant REJECT_DUST
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 562caf1 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10560: Remove unused constants...
< wumpus> yes those look ready
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10560: Remove unused constants (master...noop-modes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10560
< fanquake> Just unsure how many can be merged before one of them needs a rebase :x
< fanquake> 10553
< wumpus> I was thinking again a few days ago it would be very useful to have a tool that visualizes which PRs conflict with each other. But I don't think that information is easily available from the API.
< wumpus> would also be useful to find duplicates etc
< fanquake> 10546 should also be ok. I'm not sure what is being used to find the includes, but the pr didn't work on Windows initially, then broke again compiling. I'm wondering if it's possible we can inadvertently nuke an include for something like win32, and break something without noticing.
< fanquake> wumpus yea I think we may have even discussed a similar tool before? You mentioned you had a system for it at a previous job.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/562caf1c74fd...5d034ee7faaf
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7631066 practicalswift: Use the "domain name setup" image (previously unused) in the gitian docs
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5d034ee Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10566: [docs] Use the "domain name setup" image (previously unused) in the gitian docs...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10566: [docs] Use the "domain name setup" image (previously unused) in the gitian docs (master...unreferenced-file) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10566
< wumpus> fanquake: yep, exactly, it was really neat, apart from that the revision control there was slow as molasses and so hard to navigate a lot of departmetns resorted to 90's-style changelogs at the top of C files
< fanquake> 10568 could also go in.
< wumpus> fairly sure git can do it better, even a brute force "fetch upstream/pull/*/head for every open pull, then for every A on B try 'git merge'" shouldn't take too long
< wumpus> just need to find time to make it
< wumpus> it could even pre-optimize by skipping pulls that affect disjunct sets of files
< wumpus> +combinations
< fanquake> Yea, ideally it would "know" what PRs are most important, by looking at high the priority queue, and blocking merges that break something that's already been rebased 17 times and has a multitude of ACKs
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5d034ee7faaf...e4918316d80f
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e53a0fa practicalswift: Remove duplicate includes
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e491831 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10561: Remove duplicate includes...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10561: Remove duplicate includes (master...remove-duplicate-includes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10561
< wumpus> well we have a list of high-priority PRs
< wumpus> so I guess the usual question for such a tool would be "would merging this low-prio PR force rebase of any high-prio PRs"
< fanquake> Should be able to do 10497 before 10193, as it's easy to redo the scripted diff, and it needs a rebase anyways.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e4918316d80f...2c2d98806253
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 49de096 practicalswift: Remove unused Boost includes
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2c2d988 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10546: Remove 33 unused Boost includes...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10546: Remove 33 unused Boost includes (master...remove-unused-boost-includes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10546
< txpending> Hi I am using bitcoin core and accidentally only added 0.00000798 BTC as fee. Will this tx be processed by the miners? How can I either stop that transaction or add a fee? Are there other options?
< instagibbs> gmaxwell, hmmm good point, it's like having smaller effective value, in those cases
< gmaxwell> instagibbs: and once we've selected it, we should add more fees to bring the ancestor bundle up to the current requested feerate.
< instagibbs> yep
< murchandamus> hi Greg, did you see my pm yesterday?
< txpending> any idea what to do in my case? Shall I "zapwallettxes"? Whats the risk?
< murchandamus> txpending: You're in the wrong channel, this channel is about Bitcoin Core development. You might want to ask in #bitcoin. Meanwhile this might answer your questionhttps://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/41972/5406
< txpending> murchandamus: thanks for the pointers! However, I haven't found a way in the bitcoin core QT gui to "Send all your bitcoins from the addresses recorded in step 1 to a new address with the recommended or higher than recommended fee."
< instagibbs> txpending, #bitcoin please, people will help
< txpending> since this is the dev channel, maybe this is a "feature request" ;-) I
< txpending> instagibbs: isn't it a usability bug if that's a valid usecase and the GUI doesn't provide means to cater for that?
< instagibbs> txpending, rather than continue arguing, please move it to #bitcoin. If the answers aren't satisfying, the place to go next is github repo and file an issue
< txpending> instagibbs: yes, I'll file an issue. wasn't my intention to argue, but I was rather afraid that my tx will be out there, never complete and my bitcoins are lost.
< txpending> have a nice day. bye.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10573: Remove unnecessary includes (master...remove-unneccessary-includes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10573
< TheV01D> in 2017 , who removes headers :D
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift closed pull request #10573: Remove unnecessary includes (master...remove-unneccessary-includes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10573
< sipa> nobody.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10574: Remove includes in .cpp files for things the corresponding .h file already included (master...redundant) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10574
< gmaxwell> murchandamus: ypu just haven't gotten to it yet!
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #10575: Header include guideline (master...includeguide) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10575
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #10577: Add an explanation of quickly hashing onto a non-power of two range. (master...hashrange-comment) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10577