< promag> #12153 is ready to merge imo
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12153 | Avoid permanent cs_main lock in getblockheader by promag · Pull Request #12153 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #15107: rest: Return 404 in /rest/headers if block hash does not exists (master...2019-rest-header-404) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15107
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] amitiuttarwar opened pull request #15108: [tests] tidy up wallet_importmulti.py (master...14952_rebase) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15108
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #13621: Check for datadir after the config files were read (master...init-swap-datadir-readconf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13621
< fanquake> dongcarl Is #14442 still relevant after your updates to 12255 (or relevant at all)?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14442 | quit nicely with bitcoin-cli stop; use simple mode by colourful-land · Pull Request #14442 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #14167: [WIP] docs: improve linux tar packages (master...fix-10746) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14167
< dongcarl> fanquake: Nope, I think both the "quit nicely with bitcoin-cli stop" part and the "use simple mode" part were shown not to be the best idea. I will comment on that PR with more context but it should be closed at some point.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14952: [do not merge] [tests] tidy up wallet_importmulti.py (master...14886_review_comments) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14952
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #14442: quit nicely with bitcoin-cli stop; use simple mode (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14442
< dongcarl> fanquake: Wondering what you mean here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12255#pullrequestreview-189592116
< dongcarl> What do you mean by "when release notes are merged"? The release notes I wrote are in the same PR as the actual changes, should I separate them?
< fanquake> dongcarl I mean when the release notes are merged into release-notes.md. Either at release time, or in one of the "roll ups", like we just had in #15081.
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15081 | Doc: Update release notes for master through to 2019-01-01 by harding · Pull Request #15081 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< fanquake> So nah, leave them as is. All good.
< fanquake> Can deal with all the nits then, rather than block PRs.
< dongcarl> kk
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #15109: refactor: Use C++11 default member initializers (master...Mf1901-ctorClean) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15109
< promag> provoostenator: ping #12134
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12134 | Build previous releases and run functional tests by Sjors · Pull Request #12134 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< promag> imo #11911 should be in hp for review
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11911 | Free BerkeleyEnvironment instances when not in use by ryanofsky · Pull Request #11911 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr closed pull request #14782: [0.17] Bugfix: Correctly calculate balances when min_conf is used, and for getbalance("*") (0.17...bugfix_rpc_getbalance_acctstar-0.17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14782
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr closed pull request #14602: Bugfix: Correctly calculate balances when min_conf is used, and for getbalance("*") (master...bugfix_rpc_getbalance_untrusted) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14602
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake reopened pull request #15094: 0.17: Backport for #15085 (0.17...0.17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15094
< provoostenator> promag: I'll update that soonish.
< fanquake> provoostenator will that scope of that testing still be 0.17.x -> master, or are you planning on building older releases?
< provoostenator> I was thinking of only supporting every major release, with the latest patch version.
< provoostenator> so 0.17.1 and 0.18.0 when it comes out
< provoostenator> The reason it doesn't support 0.16.* currently is that I haven't bothered to figure out some of the errors, so I'd rather just keep it simple.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fe5a70b9fefa...88bbcdc4e9b6
< provoostenator> The problem with 0.16 might be as simple as the new [testnet] syntax for config files, but I couldn't figure it out last time I looked into it (a bit).
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 958e1a3 practicalswift: streams: Remove unused seek(size_t)
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4f4993f practicalswift: Remove UBSan suppression
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 88bbcdc MarcoFalke: Merge #14357: streams: Fix broken streams_vector_reader test. Remove unused seek(size_t)....
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14357: streams: Fix broken streams_vector_reader test. Remove unused seek(size_t). (master...vectorreader-seek-n-with-negative-n) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14357
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bytting closed pull request #15083: wallet: Fix a bug where memcmp takes a pointer address as second argument (master...20190103-fix-memcmp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15083
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/88bbcdc4e9b6...9c719987718d
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d2a1adf João Barbosa: qt: Factor out WalletModel::getDisplayName()
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b2ce86c João Barbosa: qt: Use WalletModel* instead of wallet name in main window
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 91b0c5b João Barbosa: qt: Use WalletModel* instead of wallet name in console window
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #14784: qt: Use WalletModel* instead of the wallet name as map key (master...2018-11-qtwalletmodel) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14784
< fanquake> Can someone doing native Windows builds clarify if you are meant to/need to install secp & leveldb with vcpkg?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Mr-Leshiy opened pull request #15110: Fix the build problem in libbitcoin_server (master...MrLeshiy_Fix_Build) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15110
< provoostenator> Boy I wish the function test runner would scream in protest if you forget to compile first :-)
< provoostenator> Maybe it could ask make if anything is outdated and then give a warning? Or would that be super brittle?
< gmaxwell> provoostenator: just adopt a practice of using make on the same commandline you run the test with
< gmaxwell> make && ./foo
< gmaxwell> alternatively we could make a target for the tests
< gmaxwell> e.g. make check ... or in fact, make make check run the functional tests.
< provoostenator> That is a good practice.
< provoostenator> I usually run just a single test, so make check probably wouldn't be a good fit. Unless we make it really smart.
< provoostenator> "JSONRPCException: Unknown named parameter wait" - getting this during a rebase; did we recently change something related?
< gmaxwell> there is a PR that had a wait argument and lost it... something with wallet unloading or shutdown or something
< provoostenator> It causes the 0.17.1 node to explode in my backwards compatilibyt test. I think I can work around it though.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #15111: Avoid UB (member call on nullptr) when failing to read randomness in the startup process (master...random-ub) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15111
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Empact opened pull request #15112: build: Enable -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant (master...zero-as-null-pointer-constant) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15112
< promag> provoostenator: how does that change affect your work?