< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #16800: Basic Miniscript support in output descriptors (master...201908_miniscript) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16800
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] martinus opened pull request #16801: bulk pool allocator for node based containers (master...2019-08-bulkpoolallocator) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16801
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] takinbo opened pull request #16802: scripts: search for next position of magic bytes rather than fail (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16802
< wumpus> oh nooo what's wrong with travis now
< wumpus> oh timeouts getting dependencies outside our control again, https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/580589335
< promag> wumpus: am I seeing it right? 10 min timeout?
< jonasschnelli> manually added peers (like -connect) will not be stored in addrman? Right? So there's currently no way to persist (or even keep in memory) the service flags?
< darosior> Could someone restart the stopped Travis jobs for s://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16787 please ?
< fanquake> darosior: done
< darosior> Thanks !
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #16801: bulk pool allocator for node based containers (master...2019-08-bulkpoolallocator) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16801
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke reopened pull request #16801: bulk pool allocator for node based containers (master...2019-08-bulkpoolallocator) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16801
< wumpus> jonasschnelli: I think you're right
< wumpus> promag: you're seeing it right, the timeout for that initial part seems to be 10min, independently of the total timeout
< wumpus> promag: oh I understand, it's after 10 minutes of *no output*
< wumpus> that has a much lower timeout because it assumes the process is stuck if it's not spamming
< jonasschnelli> re travis: bitcoinbuilds.org is working smooth.
< jonasschnelli> I had to reduce the period how long the caches and build artefacts are stored (currently 15days).
< jonasschnelli> The whole build system was consuming up to 1TB
< jonasschnelli> Also,... the GitHub checks integration apps works on the basic level
< darosior> fanquake: could you restart the two stop jobs for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16787 again please ?.. They have again be stopped for a mysterious reason (the same as last time)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #16804: test: Remove incorrect and unused try-block in assert_debug_log (master...1909-testFix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16804
< sdaftuar_> aj: instagibbs: do you guys agree with my comment here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16421#discussion_r320838962
< sdaftuar_> if i have that right, then i'll bug matt to make that change now rather than re-address post-merge, because i think it'd be a bit annoying to have one fix in for 0.19 (hopefully) and then change it again afterward to address the case that is overlooked
< sdaftuar_> but i don't want to stall the PR if i'm getting that wrong somehow! i think the code there is already an improvement
< instagibbs> that strikes me as correct
< instagibbs> the comment explaining the behavior is a bit confusing me to(linked in the PR)
< sdaftuar_> you mean it's confusing, even apart from the point i brought up?
< sdaftuar_> i actually thought it was pretty good when i read it yesterday, but i also had discussed this with matt in person a while ago, which probably biases my understanding of the text
< instagibbs> yeah that's what i mean. I mean in general it's hard for me to even talk about relay policy stuff
< instagibbs> lots of terms and concepts
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jamesob opened pull request #16805: logs: add timing information to FlushStateToDisk() (master...2019-09-flush-logs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16805
< sipa> what gcc version is used in travis job 6 (the trusty one)?
< sipa> it seems to fail on some usage of user-defined literals in #16800, but user defined literals have been supported since gcc 4.7
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16800 | Basic Miniscript support in output descriptors by sipa · Pull Request #16800 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< sipa> i can't imagine we're using something older than that
< sipa> ok, found it
< sipa> seems in gcc 4.8 you can't use user-defined literals inside macro calls
< midnightmagic> errors emitted in GCC >= 7.1 complaining about: note: parameter passing for argument of type '__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::pair<long long int, CKeyID>*, std::vector<std::pair<long long int, CKeyID> > >' changed in GCC 7.1 <-- do I care?
< sipa> midnightmagic: it's warning you that code compiled passing data of that type around is incompatible with pre-GCC 7.1-compiled code
< sipa> tl;dr: no