< pinheadmz>
luke-jr: can you elaborate? How can any block not be subject to a better-work chain?
< harding>
pinheadmz: the bad block corrupts the utxo db so that other chains don't look like valid chains to the old software.
< pinheadmz>
harding: weird, thanks.
< kallewoof>
luke-jr: I re-pushed it now that the first commit was merged. I assumed it wouldn't break as the commits were identical, but don't assume, I guess. trying to build now.
< kallewoof>
luke-jr: it builds fine on my end. (and travis/appveyor seem to have no issues either)
< meshcollider>
is it too late to add a missing contributor to the 0.18.1 release notes?
< meshcollider>
fanquake: advice? ^
< fanquake>
meshcollider: You could add them to the release notes on GH I guess? Obviously too late for the mailing lists etc
< meshcollider>
ok just wanted to check there wasn't a policy against amending release notes in branches
< meshcollider>
specifically it is the reporter of this issue #16011 who followed up with PR #16012 and helped with 16022 among others
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16011 | addmultisigaddress does not fallback to legacy when there are uncompressed public keys in the parameters · Issue #16011 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16012 | rpc: addmultisigaddress should fallback to OutputType::LEGACY when uncompressed public keys are provided by ps1dr3x · Pull Request #16012 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider>
I think he should definitely be acknowledged
< fanquake>
meshcollider fair enough. I don't have a problem with it, and it's right after release. What we don't like it someone turning up and "fixing" typos in the 0.5.x release notes etc
< meshcollider>
fanquake: yeah, makes sense :)
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] meshcollider opened pull request #16604: [0.18] Add missing contributor to 0.18.1 release notes (0.18...201908_update_release_notes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16604
< gleb>
I want to discuss #16599 sometime at the meeting, but maybe we should start with “needs conceptual review”? Do we have room for this discussion in the conceptual review list?
< jnewbery>
wumpus: would you consider reverting #16248? It's quite a large PR (~450 LOC) with only your ACK. I'm not sure anyone has actually reviewed the parsing code in detail.
< wumpus>
jnewbery: if you think it's really a risk
< wumpus>
the parsing code looks fine to me
< wumpus>
imo if it causes trouble we can revert it later, before the 0.19 release
< jnewbery>
wumpus: not sure if it's a risk. Just seems under-reviewed to me.
< wumpus>
tbh I was a bit sick of only merging small refactors and documentation changes, seems we have a lot of trouble merging anything more significant lately
< wumpus>
and this seems pretty straightforward and has tests, anyhow if you really think it should be reverted instead of fixing the issues with it that's fine with me
< jnewbery>
I don't pay as much attention to what's being merged as you, but lowering the review burden doesn't seem like the right fix to interesting things not getting merged (at least not without discussion first)
< wumpus>
it has been open for quite a while
< jnewbery>
like I say, I haven't looked at the PR in great detail, so I can't say whether it's a big risk. It just seemed like the code change:number of ACKs ratio was unusual
< sipa>
Code ACK on the string parsing code in that PR.
< sipa>
there :)
< wumpus>
I don't know either, sorry okay
< wumpus>
sipa: thanks!
< wumpus>
that's some forward momentum right there :)
< jnewbery>
merge driven review :)
< wumpus>
we did that more often in the past
< wumpus>
it's good to be careful, but also, not everything needs the same level of assurance as changes to the consensus code
< aj>
wumpus: oh, i kept putting off doing a proper review/ack for 16248, sorry. moneyball was meant to be pinging people to ACK PRs so we got less bogged down in refactors etc, wonder if he's still doing that
< moneyball>
aj i intend too but sadly have put on back burner as i'm heads down building the square crypto team right now. everyone should bug me again in 1-2 months to make sure i am doing my part to help this project!
< fanquake>
aj I’ve been ramping up my pinging / reaching out to people.
< aj>
moneyball: ohoh, fanquake's going to render you obsolete