< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d8d9162f5bad...66e91420ab23
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0eb84f3 Ben Woosley: test: Use wait_until to ensure ping goes out...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 66e9142 MarcoFalke: Merge #12545: test: Use wait_until to ensure ping goes out...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #12545: test: Use wait_until to ensure ping goes out (master...ping-timing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12545
< jojeyh> is there a way to easily specify the fee by sat/kb using bitcoin-cli ?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Maivaza opened pull request #12679: 0.15 (master...0.15) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12679
< kallewoof> jojeyh: for sendtoaddress? there's a PR but it's not been merged yet unfortunately: #11413
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11413 | [wallet] [rpc] sendtoaddress/sendmany: Add explicit feerate option by kallewoof · Pull Request #11413 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #12679: 0.15 (master...0.15) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12679
< kallewoof> jojeyh: I think your question is more suited for #bitcoin though, btw.
< jojeyh> kallewoof, thx i was wondering if someone had already done it
< jojeyh> aye
< pierre_rochard> Does anyone know of software / a script that can say “if you merge this pull request, then pull requests X, Y, and Z will have to be rebased”? Google didn’t turn anything up so I’m interested in writing one
< Randolf> pierre_rochard: The folks on the #github channel have been helpful to me in the past. I suspect there's a good chance someone there might know of something like you describe if it exists.
< pierre_rochard> I’ll ask them, thanks Randolf!
< Randolf> You're welcome.
< Alohaaaa> Hello
< wumpus> pierre_rochard: ajtowns[m] did some work in that direction (a script to figure out which PRs collide with which others) from what I remember
< pierre_rochard> wumpus: thanks, maybe https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin-prs is it and he hasn’t pushed the code up yet. ajtowns[m] I’m happy to help out
< murrayn> argh. had an open PR, and made a mistake push. easy way to undo that?
< wumpus> murrayn: yes, go to git reflog, find the old commit id
< wumpus> murrayn: force-push that to the branch
< murrayn> wumpus, will that undo the push? or create a new push that undoes the bad push?
< murrayn> just curious
< wumpus> isn't that the same?
< murrayn> well
< murrayn> i'd rather just go back in time obviously.
< murrayn> than to document fixing a fuckup
< wumpus> well by finding the old commit id you're going back in time
< murrayn> ok, we'll see
< wumpus> to me it seems entirely philosophical wehther you consider that a new push of an old state, or re-doing an old push, or restoring the previous push
< murrayn> hmm
< wumpus> also you can do git reset --hard <commit> (on the branch) first to do it locally, then force-push the branch to the remote branch, if that's easier to understand
< murrayn> wumpus, just trying to understand: so after the reset, is the --force necessary?
< murrayn> wumpus, or just git push
< wumpus> yes, the force is necessary as you're pushing a commit that is not a child of the current branch
< murrayn> ah
< wumpus> it doesn't change, from regard of github, what you do locally
< murrayn> wumpus, thank you sir.
< murrayn> seems to have worked.
< wumpus> cool
< wumpus> I've invited eklitzke (as frequent contributor) to the bitcoin and bitcoin-core orgs
< kallewoof> if you literally want to go back to say '5 mins ago' you can also do: git reset --hard mynicebranch@{"5 minutes ago"}
< wumpus> kallewoof: ah yes, git understands time referencs, I forgot about that :)
< kallewoof> wumpus: I only learned about it a few weeks ago. I actually used it already, once. :) Very cool feature.
< contrapumpkin> esotericnonsense: hah, after a day of running -reindex, it popped up the exact same error message at the same place :P
< Randolf> contrapumpkin: Might there be a bad sector on your hard disk?
< Guest99> hey, looking through this reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/CoinBase/comments/83syb6/warning_coinbase_merchant_segwit_implementation/) claiming the current Coinbase segwit implementation for merchants is broken,
< Guest99> can someone break down exactly what's wrong for me?
< Guest99> the poster said he confirmed it with bitcoin dev, but i cant find the chat logs
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.16: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/60086ddc34ee...46ca8f383e53
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.16 faf316a Wladimir J. van der Laan: test: Update trust git root...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.16 46ca8f3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12648: [0.16] test: Update trusted git root...
< provoostenator> Gues99: that's a topic for #bitcoin, unless it's a bug in Bitcoin Core
< provoostenator> Guest99 ^
< provoostenator> (there are Core devs on many IRC channels)
< Guest99> provoostenator thanks!
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/66e91420ab23...ae5bcc7abb14
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b1149ee practicalswift: Remove redundant code in MutateTxSign(CMutableTransaction&, const std::string&)
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ae5bcc7 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10694: Remove redundant code in MutateTxSign(CMutableTransaction&, const std::string&)...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10694: Remove redundant code in MutateTxSign(CMutableTransaction&, const std::string&) (master...remove-redundant-code-in-MutateTxSign) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10694
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ae5bcc7abb14...3d16f581538b
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f4b68b3 Evan Klitzke: Log fatal LevelDB errors more verbosely
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3d16f58 MarcoFalke: Merge #12659: Improve Fatal LevelDB Log Messages...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #12659: Improve Fatal LevelDB Log Messages (master...leveldb_errmsg) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12659
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3d16f581538b...0f58d7f3d62f
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa44af5 MarcoFalke: travis: Full clone for git subtree check
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0f58d7f MarcoFalke: Merge #12405: travis: Full clone for git subtree check...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #12405: travis: Full clone for git subtree check (master...Mf1802-travisSubtree) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12405
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0f58d7f3d62f...0f0229d0c363
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa1436c MarcoFalke: [qa] util: Remove unused sync_chain
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0f0229d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12643: [qa] util: Remove unused sync_chain...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #12643: [qa] util: Remove unused sync_chain (master...Mf1803-qaUtilSyncChain) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12643
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0f0229d0c363...702e8b70bd87
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8acd25d MarcoFalke: rpc: Allow typeAny in RPCTypeCheck
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa06dfc MarcoFalke: [rpc] createrawtransaction: Accept sorted outputs
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fac7013 MarcoFalke: rpc: Update createrawtransaction examples
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11872: [rpc] createrawtransaction: Accept sorted outputs (master...Mf1712-rpcCreateRawSortedOuts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11872
< aj> pierre_rochard: that repo was just where i was playing around with a bot that autotags pull requests. https://gist.github.com/ajtowns/d0cf97678dc83efdf3f6cbf7083a35a0 was where i was playing around with autodetecting conflicts
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/702e8b70bd87...af88094e4f71
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 029ecac Pieter Wuille: Split up and sanitize CWalletTx serialization
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 42343c7 Pieter Wuille: Split up and sanitize CAccountingEntry serialization
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master af88094 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12658: Sanitize some wallet serialization...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #12658: Sanitize some wallet serialization (master...201803_crazywalletser) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12658
< mrannanay> wumpus : Could you review #12288 when you're free?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12288 | [WIP][NET] Add NATPMP support. by annanay25 · Pull Request #12288 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< promag> candidate for merge #11041
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11041 | Add LookupBlockIndex by promag · Pull Request #11041 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< provoostenator> #12666 made me curious: when do we use packages like UniValue from the OS, vs. compiling it from the src dir? And why even bother with the former?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12666 | configure: UniValue 1.0.4 is required for pushKV(, bool) by luke-jr · Pull Request #12666 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< sipa> provoostenator: becaause some people insist on being able to use OS packages
< provoostenator> Bonus question: how is this different from the Depends system?
< luke-jr> provoostenator: it is a bad practice to bundle libraries at all
< sipa> luke-jr: why?
< sipa> i buy that argument for large libraries that are outside of bitcoin core's development
< wumpus> mrannanay: will take a look at it again tomorrow
< wumpus> for libraries that are part of consensus (secp256k1,leveldb) there's a good reason to bundle it, for leveldb especially as we have some custom patches to it
< mrannanay> wumpus : Thanks!
< wumpus> for univalue the case is somewhat weaker, but based on it being a rarely-packaged library
< wumpus> not bundling it would give people a lot of pain
< sipa> luke-jr: none of that applies; univalue is effectively developed by us
< wumpus> finding it, building it, manually installing it. We save that for berkeleydb 4.8 :-)
< luke-jr> well, if we didn't depend on 1.0.4 specifically now, 1.0.2 is pretty widespreadly packaged
< wumpus> unilvalue is virtually only used by us
< wumpus> yes, bundling makes it possible to develop it in parallel
< wumpus> without having to support tons of combinations
< sipa> i think the arguments in those documents very much apply to not bundling bdb, boost, glibc, ...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/af88094e4f71...d42a4fe5aaae
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 02de6a6 João Barbosa: Assert cs_main is held when accessing mapBlockIndex
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c651df8 João Barbosa: Lock cs_main while loading block index in AppInitMain
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f814a3e João Barbosa: Fix cs_main lock in LoadExternalBlockFile...
< luke-jr> we're also not the upstream for univalue. jgarzik is.
< provoostenator> But why aren't univalue, secp256k1, etc part of the Depends system? Maybe there should be a way to build /depends skipping installed packages?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11041: Add LookupBlockIndex (master...2017-08-lookup-block-index) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11041
< luke-jr> provoostenator: good idea
< luke-jr> (although even if leveldb is installed, we may still prefer to build our own)
< sipa> provoostenator: because they're subtrees
< provoostenator> Skipping installed packages if the version is acceptable.
< provoostenator> sipa: but they could be seperate repos under the bitcoin org?
< sipa> provoostenator: they are
< wumpus> I'd really prefer not to change this - it works, people are used to it
< luke-jr> it's probably good enough as is; bumping the required version here and there is no big deal
< sipa> provoostenator: look up how subtrees work
< luke-jr> sipa: his point is that using depends would be superior to subtrees
< sipa> yes, and i disagree with that
< provoostenator> Subtrees as opposed to submodules?
< sipa> we want exact control over the source code used for some things
< luke-jr> sipa: we could have exact control over it with depends too
< sipa> yes, but we'd lose it for non-depends builds
< provoostenator> (I've had nothing but headaches dealing with git submodules, so not blaming anyone for not using them)
< luke-jr> not necessarily
< sipa> subtrees give us this property always
< luke-jr> anyhow, unless someone is going to put the work into migrating it over, no point wasting time discussing in depth IMO
< wumpus> also there is no special incantation needed to check things out
< wumpus> it's simply in one tree
< provoostenator> wumpus: I'm fine with not changing it even if it was better :-)
< wumpus> it's perfect like this IMO
< provoostenator> I didn't realize "git subtree" was a command, that's nice. Is there a way to check if it matches the original repo (other than git diff)?
< sipa> provoostenator: yes, we have a script that does that :)
< sipa> you need access to the original repo, of course
< wumpus> ./contrib/devtools/git-subtree-check.sh
< provoostenator> "git-subtree-check.sh src/univalue" doesn't seem happy, I guess I need to add some hints to check the right fork?
< sipa> $ git remote add upstream-univalue https://github.com/bitcoin-core/univalue
< sipa> $ git fetch upstream-univalue
< sipa> $ contrib/devtools/git-subtree-check.sh src/univalue
< sipa> GOOD
< provoostenator> I missed the fetch bit, now it's happy.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] vasild opened pull request #12680: Trivial: Add missing virtual destructor in PeerLogicValidation (master...master-add-missing-vdtor-in-PeerLogicValidation) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12680
< provoostenator> Re #12665 by practicalswift: are these thread safety checks done automatically when I run make, or do I need to configure something?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12665 | Add compile time checking for run time locking assertions by practicalswift · Pull Request #12665 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< provoostenator> Looks like it's checked by default (I did some trial and error sabotage on my local machine).
< arubi> bip173 lists tc1qw508d6qejxtdg4y5r3zarvary0c5xw7kg3g4ty as being invalid due to "invalid human-readable part", is it just that "tc" is not one of "bc", "tb", or "bcrt" or is there anything else to it? seems that apart from that it does encode a valid p2wpkh
< sipa> arubi: yup
< arubi> cool, cheers
< sipa> invalid hrp
< arubi> right, in my mind hrp could be anything, but I see why it's not a "segwit address"
< sipa> BIP173 only specifies bc and tb, so anything else is invalid
< Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: I believe the lightning people repurpose it. Don't know how the author feels about that usage though :-)
< sipa> but it's certainly valid bech32... just not a valid segwit address
< sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: bech32 is designed to be generally useful :)
< arubi> right, so as long as some implementation keeps to its own hrp, we should all be fine
< sipa> (though they violate the spec by exceeding 90 characters)
< aj> sipa: did you get a chance to read the mail i sent about soft-fork compatible sig aggregation? see any obvious problems, or worth sending to bitcoin-dev do you think?
< sipa> aj: i haven't yet
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d42a4fe5aaae...0630974647da
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 54b8c58 Conor Scott: [test] Fix nits leftover from 11771...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2b7064e John Newbery: [tests] Fix flake8 warnings in invalidblockrequest
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e97b113 John Newbery: [tests] Change invalidblockrequest to use BitcoinTestFramework...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #11772: [tests] Change invalidblockrequest to use BitcoinTestFramework (master...refactor_invalidblockrequest) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11772
< kobrabyte> hello all
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #12681: Fix ComputeTimeSmart test failure with -DDEBUG_LOCKORDER (master...pr/locksmart) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12681
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #12682: travis: Clone depth 1 unless $CHECK_DOC (master...Mf1803-travisDepth1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12682