< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] emilengler opened pull request #17035: qt: Fix text display when state of prune button is changed (master...2019-10-qt-intro-prune-text-update-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17035
< warren>
If anyone with sysadmin + mbox file experience wants to help with the new development mailing list archives please msg PM me. We have a temporary channel to discuss the plan and options.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #17037: Test: Many regtests with different genesis and default datadir (master...b20-n-chains) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17037
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #17038: Don't call ThreadRename for the main thread (master...2019_10_no_main_thread_rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17038
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #17040: ci: Make apt-get more verbose, to debug travis timeouts (master...1909-ciAptTimeout) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17040
< emilengler>
Where is the snapcraft.yaml?
< emilengler>
A 'tree | grep snapcraft' returns no matches
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17027 | the translations of Traditional Chinese in bitcoin_zh_TW.ts got clobbered to Simplified Chinese · Issue #17027 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< luke-jr>
rather than 0.17, wouldn't it make more sense to copy the older 0.18 ts?
< wumpus>
luke-jr: that's broken too
< luke-jr>
? "however, the bitcoin-core v18 release is not affected (yet) as v18 translation hasn't been updated since Mar 14 2019 a01925c"
< wumpus>
apparently this is an older issue that only became apparent now; the 0.19 translation was copied from 0.18 when it was created
< wumpus>
yes it was copied from 0.18 transifex, not 0.18 branch
< wumpus>
the one on the 0.18 branch could still be ok?
< luke-jr>
right, so why not copy 0.18 branch to transifex?
< wumpus>
I don't know, that's what I proposed too
< achow101>
it should be fine to upload .ts files from the branch to transifex
< luke-jr>
also, wasn't 0.18 branch updated in July for 0.18.1?
< wumpus>
ok, let's do that then
< wumpus>
any other topics people want to discuss?
< MarcoFalke>
Those are just gui issue
< MarcoFalke>
Do they warrant holding back rc1?
< wumpus>
anything that people want to merge early in the 0.20 cycle?
< wumpus>
if so, we should probably start using "high-priority for review" again
< achow101>
#16341
< achow101>
:)
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16341 | Introduce ScriptPubKeyMan interface and use it for key and script management (aka wallet boxes) by achow101 · Pull Request #16341 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus>
MarcoFalke: the duplicate payment one is reasonably serious
< wumpus>
MarcoFalke: agree wrt the other
< achow101>
The duplicate paymentrequest one seems a bit contrived. it requires doing things on the command line that most people won't do
< achow101>
but would be good to fix anyways
< MarcoFalke>
The gui wouldn't allow to pay twice, right?
< wumpus>
(although I doubt it would actually make a duplicate payment, the pay-to rejects them in the wallet right?)
< moneyball>
#proposedmeetingtopic travis and #16148
< jeremyrubin>
I guess also with #16766 would be good to have some more people look at the changes and let me know if we need to start computing Balance separately from IsTrusted.
< wumpus>
jeremyrubin: it's okay, though it might be more something for the wallet meeting
< jeremyrubin>
moneyball: I think there's been progress on leaving travis altogether?
< moneyball>
That is my understanding
< moneyball>
But there are 3 devs who have upvoted me taking action
< wumpus>
moneyball: it would be nice to get the issue with apt-get sorted out, but it's been going on for so long, people are not giving it much chance
< moneyball>
I lean toward no but am happy to help if folks think it adds value
< moneyball>
What is the realistic ETA for moving off of Travis?
< achow101>
I think it would be nice to try all possible avenues. it might be less painful if we could get travis to work than to migrate away from them completely
< moneyball>
If soon then it seems like a waste of time. If there is a good chance 3+ months or more then I'm happy to try
< MarcoFalke>
Now that someone complained on Twitter, they were quite responsive in the ticket I filed (months ago). Though, it is hard to debug remotely and a solution might not be in sight any time soon.
< jeremyrubin>
I think it's worthwhile -- insofar as travis works nicely for personal forks & it's not clear if the new core builds stuff will process those too?
< wumpus>
achow101: it would, but, how realisticically is it going to get fixed? if it's just broken promises every time...
< moneyball>
As I mention in the PR, I'd prefer to have at least one maintainer tell me it is valuable enough for me to work on it
< wumpus>
the problem can't be on our side right?
< sdaftuar>
who is actively working on migrating away from travis?
< wumpus>
I mean, it's not some stupid option we've misconfigured
< sdaftuar>
MarcoFalke ?
< wumpus>
set apt mirror to black hole
< MarcoFalke>
sdaftuar: I am running the ci on my odroid on my desk :)
< fanquake>
That libevent PR isn’t to bump the minimum required.
< fanquake>
promag why do you want to bump?
< promag>
fanquake: if there's no strong reason to not bump then I could see if a newer version could simplify #15363
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15363 | wip: http: Exit the event loop as soon as there are no active events by promag · Pull Request #15363 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub