< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 1c37e81 fanquake: scripts: add type annotations to macdeployqtplus
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 51729a4 fanquake: scripts: use format() in macdeployqtplus
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 57cdd06 fanquake: scripts: misc cleanups in macdeployqtplus
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #16477: build: skip deploying plugins we dont use in macdeployqtplus (master...slim_macdeployqtplus) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16477
< fanquake>
More Travis timeouts 🙄
< meshcollider>
yep, so many
< meshcollider>
seems like every single PR and cron
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] meshcollider opened pull request #16841: Replace GetScriptForWitness with GetScriptForDestination (master...201909_remove_getscriptforwitness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16841
< instagibbs>
sipa, is it a mistake to return an output descriptor for something that doesn't have a corresponding CTxDestination?
< wumpus>
aj: oh yes I got that one, sorry, haven't got around to it yet
< wumpus>
aj: replied
< wumpus>
fanquake: hm, looks like many of the PRs there are already closed, that project isn't really kept up to date, but I guess someone could resurrect it
< fanquake>
wumpus: yes, good call. Probably worth syncing up with dongcarl to structure that?
< meshcollider>
aj: yeah I thought about it more and realised I was wrong not it :)
< wumpus>
gleb: heh, clearly, I'm surprised how people manage to open spurious PRs, like okay sometimes it's easy to do something stupid by misclicking, but they fill in and submit an actual form
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #16845: test: Add notes on how to generate data/wallets/high_minversion (master...1909-docTestGenWalletDataHighMinVersion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16845
< promag>
wumpus: in 15871 what were the arguments?
< promag>
have you rebased it?
< dongcarl>
wumpus fanquake aj: I haven't been making much progress on the P2P refactor mostly because I didn't find a worthy "final deliverable" that might justify touching the code (should probably try harder). I'm almost certain I'll be coming back to this after I take care of my other projects. No opinion on starting a new board or using the existing one. I believe we should have a "previous attempts" column though
< dongcarl>
as there might be much to learn from those.
< sdaftuar_>
dongcarl: that's a great idea
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jamesob opened pull request #16847: doc: add comments clarifying how local services are advertised (master...2019-09-localservices-doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16847
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #16849: Fix block index inconsistency in InvalidateBlock() (master...2019-09-fix-invalidate-block-consistency) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16849
< BlueMatt>
fanquake: whats the status of #15584 ?
< BlueMatt>
do you still want to try it for 0.19? I assume its too late now?
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] darosior opened pull request #16850: Functionnal tests for `servicesnames` field in `getpeerinfo` and `getnetworkinfo` (master...servicenames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16850
< meshcollider>
BlueMatt: I don't think it's too late for 19?
< meshcollider>
It has two ACKs already
< luke-jr>
I don't like the idea of losing wallet metadata :/
< luke-jr>
one is only a concept ACK; the other doesn't address it at all
< BlueMatt>
luke-jr: the wallet metadata is usually wrong, though....it'll say "bitpay" when you paid xyz.com via bitpay
< fanquake>
BlueMatt: yea, I’d like to get that in.
< BlueMatt>
(also, doesn't have to be "lost", you just have to turn on bip70 to see it)
< luke-jr>
BlueMatt: afaik the goal is to remove BIP70 entirely - in which case, you have to turn it on BEFORE 0.20 or whatever
< luke-jr>
and we have a terrible track record of wallet backward compatibility
< achow101>
that's not even wallet metadata, is it? It's just a display thing, nothing bip70 specific is stored in the wallet db