< fanquake> emilengler: what issues are you having with it?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/335b34c30ca9...d8fe24cbfb72
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e90478f Jon Atack: log: harmonize bitcoind server logging
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d8fe24c fanquake: Merge #16489: log: harmonize bitcoind logging
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #16489: log: harmonize bitcoind logging (master...daemon-logging-harmonisation) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16489
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 5 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d8fe24cbfb72...59681beb899e
< 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?
< instagibbs> in raw transaction decoding context
< instagibbs> e.g., "desc": "raw(75)#ppey0zqj"
< meshcollider> I think that's ok
< sipa> also true for p2pk or bare multisig
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider closed pull request #16655: rpc: Extract scriptPubKey on getreceivedbyaddress (master...rpcwallet_patch) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16655
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] soroosh-sdi opened pull request #16842: fix some warnings (master...09-11-2019-warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16842
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #16842: fix some warnings (master...09-11-2019-warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16842
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/59681beb899e...33c466a64254
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6564f58 darosior: rpc/net: decode the services flags in a new entry
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 66740f4 darosior: doc: add a release note for the new field in 'getpeerinfo' and 'getnetwork...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 33c466a Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #16787: rpc: Human readable network services
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #16787: rpc: Human readable network services (master...services_for_humans) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16787
< promag> small fix #15997
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15997 | refactor: GuessVerificationProgress requires cs_main lock by promag · Pull Request #15997 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> would be nice if github had explicit depends-on metadata for PRs/issues
< fanquake> Would be nice if GH had a lot of things hah.
< aj> meshcollider: ping? did you delete your comment "Yes and this is also not correct I think?" on 16251? github is confusing
< aj> wumpus: not sure if you got the email, but was thinking about setting up a github project board for tracking p2p PRs; does that sound plausible?
< fanquake> aj: I thought we had one already?
< 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?
< wumpus> fanquake: yes let's ask
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] BIAgents opened pull request #16843: Merge pull request #1 from bitcoin/master (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16843
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #16843: Merge pull request #1 from bitcoin/master (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16843
< gleb> Apparently, investment professionals are not github professionals =\
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/33c466a64254...750c2fbf2670
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 052c54e Jorge Timón: Testchains: Generic selection with -chain=<str> in addition of -testnet an...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3bf9d8c Jorge Timón: Testchains: Qt: Simplify network/chain styles
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 750c2fb MarcoFalke: Merge #16680: Preparations for more testchains
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #16680: Preparations for more testchains (master...b19-testchains-qt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16680
< 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
< aj> meshcollider: :)
< fanquake> Did I miss a spam PR 👀
< aj> fanquake: 19:05 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #16843: Merge pull
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16843 | Merge pull request #1 from bitcoin/master by BIAgents · Pull Request #16843 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< aj> fanquake: so no?
< aj> #proposedmeetingtopic p2p pr dashboard https://gist.github.com/ajtowns/6073bd110b9f3193293b4321ce8a0394
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 commit to 0.17: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ed65d1483466...2e4353d3f155
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.17 2e4353d Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Final translations update for 0.17 branch
< gleb> Ack p2p PR dashboard. I first thought about why not labels, but managing priority etc is obviously cleaner on a dashboard.
< gleb> Not sure how to navigate between general high prio and p2p high prio tho
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/750c2fbf2670...1985c4efda56
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0c6054f THETCR: depends: Bump QT to LTS release 5.9.8
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1985c4e Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #16413: depends: Bump QT to LTS release 5.9.8
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #16413: depends: Bump QT to LTS release 5.9.8 (master...qt-lts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16413
< 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 ?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15584 | build: disable BIP70 support by default by fanquake · Pull Request #15584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< 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