< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #17872: QA: p2p_invalid_block: Check that a block rejected due to too-new time is later accepted (master...qa_timetoonew_retry) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17872
< meshcollider>
hello :) back from my trip now so I'll try and catch up on PRs and everything in the next few days. Feel free to ping me if anyone has PRs that are RTM now
< fanquake>
meshcollider Hope you enjoyed. 17621, probably take a look at 16373 as well.
< meshcollider>
fanquake: awesome thanks
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #17873: doc: Add to Doxygen documentation guidelines (master...doxygen-developer-notes-improvements) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17873
< fanquake>
jonatack In 17873, you should just be editing the original commit directly. There's no point including it (including all it's issues), only to revert a bunch of the changes in a follow up commit.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #17874: build: make linker checks more robust (master...make_linker_checks_more_robust) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17874
< jonatack>
fanquake: 17873: done
< jonatack>
meshcollider: welcome back. 17578 has 3 acks from jnewbery, fjahr, promag... unblocks both 17585 and adding multiple labels per address
< fanquake>
Where is the third ACK in that PR? I count two.
< kallewoof>
fanquake: noted you closed a PR stating the fix should be in the PR that uses it. Do you think #16653 should be closed, then? It felt like it would ease review of the two features, which is why I split it out.
< fanquake>
kallewoof I'm missing some context there, but can answer soon. However if it's a feature split, that sounds better than the PR I closed.
< kallewoof>
fanquake: I split out the simple signature feature used in bip-322 and 325 as it was a shared feature and would lower the review burden on the other two if merged
< fanquake>
kallewoof sounds ok
< elichai2>
anyone saw this before?
< elichai2>
/usr/bin/ld: qt/libbitcoinqt.a(libbitcoinqt_a-overviewpage.o): in function `TxViewDelegate::TxViewDelegate(PlatformStyle const*, QObject*)':
< elichai2>
src/qt/overviewpage.cpp:58: undefined reference to `vtable for TxViewDelegate'
< hebasto>
elichai2: on master?
< elichai2>
No. Just hoped someone already saw this before I start chasing ghosts :)
< gwillen>
elichai2: "undefined reference to vtable" is a weird C++ corner case that happens when the compiler is confused about which object file to put the vtable in
< gwillen>
if you have not yet written a definition for every function in the class, treat it as meaning "undefined reference to <one of the functions>"
< gwillen>
specifically "the first non-inline non-pure-virtual function in the class", according to the documentation
< gwillen>
apparently failing to implement a virtual destructor in a class with virtual functions is a popular way to trigger this
< luke-jr>
elichai2: IIRC that's usually meaning there's a MOC missing somewhere
< elichai2>
Thanks
< fanquake>
jonasschnelli: can you take a look at 17096
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #17877: qt, refactor: Make enums in BitcoinUnits class scoped (master...20200105-scoped-enums) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17877
< fanquake>
kallewoof can you have a look at backporting #16240