< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ac5c5d0162a9...088604221b4a
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9b0e162 Ben Woosley: doc: Correct spelling errors in comments
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0886042 fanquake: Merge #18253: doc: Correct spelling errors in comments
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #18253: doc: Correct spelling errors in comments (master...2020-03-lint-spelling) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18253
< kallewoof> Is there a way to undo a git checkout -B <existing branch>? I just did it, in the reverse order, and undid all my work. :/
< sipa> git reflog
< fanquake> ^
< sipa> that'll give you a history of commits andnbranches you went through
< kallewoof> Thanks... I think checking out HEAD@{6} got me back where I wanted to be
< sipa> awesome
< provoostenator> Or the lazy version if Github is still up to date and you trust them: git reset --hard origin/my-precious-branch
< provoostenator> * origin -> your github remote
< kallewoof> prob is, i checked out from master into a new branch, did a bunch of stuff, and then screwed up when I meant to do git checkout -B OVERWRITE_THIS by instead checking out OVERWRITE_THIS branch and doing git checkout -B MYCHANGES...
< kallewoof> I think my brain decided that checkout -B meant "checkout whatever is on the branch and use that as the new head for this branch"..
< wumpus> shall I tag v0.19.1?
< wumpus> I guess I forgot about it a bit and no one reminded me. I don't think anything critical has come up with rc2?
< fanquake> wumpus: sounds good
< fanquake> I haven't seen anything re rc2
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 commit to 0.19: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a28ea316ed47...58ba7c314d55
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 58ba7c3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Bump version for 0.19.1 final
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed tag v0.19.1: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.19.1
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/088604221b4a...a71c34742c24
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa7d050 MarcoFalke: rpc: Move OuterType enum to header
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa6b061 MarcoFalke: rpc: Auto-format RPCResult
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a71c347 MarcoFalke: Merge #17809: rpc: Auto-format RPCResult
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17809: rpc: Auto-format RPCResult (master...1906-rpcResult) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17809
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #18164: rpc: generalize address in decoderawtransaction RPCResult (master...20200216-rpc-remove-concrete-address-from-rpcresult) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18164
< harding> wumpus: FYI, 0.19.1 release stuff for the website: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/698
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18259: doc: Merge release notes for 0.20.0 release (master...2003-docMergeRel) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18259
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to 0.19: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/58ba7c314d55...05f5dd96c71e
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 1964561 fanquake: build: don't embed a build-id when building libdmg-hfsplus
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 48fef5e Russell Yanofsky: gui: Fix race in WalletModel::pollBalanceChanged
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 05f5dd9 MarcoFalke: Merge #18218: [0.19] Further 0.19 backports
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18218: [0.19] Further 0.19 backports (0.19...futher-0-19-backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18218
< jonatack_> Re-kick appveyor for #17812 please
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17812 | config, net, test: asmap feature refinements and functional tests by jonatack · Pull Request #17812 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< instagibbs> sipa, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18204#discussion_r387761668 mind just giving an straw function of inputs to "key expressions numbers"?
< sipa> instagibbs: sh(multi(2,xpubA...,xpubB,xpubC))
< sipa> xpubA would be 0
< sipa> xpubB woukd be 1
< sipa> xoubC would be 2
< instagibbs> ah. Slightly different abstraction than I was thinking
< sipa> for hardened paths you'd still need a pubkey per derivation as well
< luke-jr> MarcoFalke: how does the boost bug tested in #18232 affect us?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18232 | test: Check that wait_until returns if time point is in the past by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #18232 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< MarcoFalke> luke-jr: I don't think it affects us
< MarcoFalke> Well, it might if you change your time zone or system time. But I think Bitcoin Core does not support that anyway?!
< MarcoFalke> Or if you schedule something with a timestamp in the past. I think we don't do that either
< luke-jr> then why test it?
< luke-jr> no reason to create hurdles to tests passing, if they don't affect us..
< MarcoFalke> It does happen in unit tests or functional test, because there we schedule things in the past (for testing reasons)
< luke-jr> hmm
< luke-jr> well, we still should be able to test on current systems IMO
< MarcoFalke> Yeah, which is why the mockscheduler test is disabled
< MarcoFalke> I think the only feasible solution is to remove boost
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #18232: WIP test: Check that wait_until returns if time point is in the past (master...2002-debugBoost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18232
< luke-jr> or handle the exception?
< MarcoFalke> How would you handle it and then proceed with execution?
< MarcoFalke> The next call would throw the same exception
< MarcoFalke> And if the exception is handled in the scheduler, it seems overkill to modify Bitcoin Core code for purly (unit) testing needs
< MarcoFalke> *purely
< * MarcoFalke> lunch
< luke-jr> MarcoFalke: if the exception is thrown, check manually if the time is past; if not, rethrow
< luke-jr> if so, nothing more to do
< MarcoFalke> Jup, in that case it would need to be handled in the scheduler, which I'd rather not for the reason just mentioned
< nothingmuch> MarcoFalke: i think the currently disabled test can be made robust to the failure by deducting a delta that doesn't go too far into the past, i'm attempting that now
< nothingmuch> the mockforward test, that is
< MarcoFalke> I know. But that still doesn't *solve* the problem
< MarcoFalke> If you reboot your machine and have the tests already compiled it will still fail, even with a minimal delta
< nothingmuch> oh!
< nothingmuch> i didn't realize that =(
< MarcoFalke> Basically any delta that is larger than the time it took you to start your machine
< nothingmuch> oh, ok that's how i understood it before... just to make sure - the time of compilation itself doesn't factor in, right? it's that if the compilation is fast?
< nothingmuch> what i was going to do is just compute a delta for mockforward that is enough to be in the past, but no further in the past than the start of the test
< MarcoFalke> The boost::internal_clock (whatever that is) starts to count when you start your computer
< MarcoFalke> if boot+compile takes 2 minutes, the clock will show 2 minutes
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] rex4539 closed pull request #17839: build: depends macOS: hide linker visibility warnings (master...hide-warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17839
< MarcoFalke> The unit test should fully run in 2 milliseconds, so I don't think you can use the start of the test as a useful reference time
< nothingmuch> because such a test would be too slow to be acceptable? i was going to reduce the 5 minutes by a few orders of magnitude
< nothingmuch> i.e. t0 = now; microsleep; dt = now-t0; schedule for dt from now; mock forward by 2*dt
< MarcoFalke> The test is disabled now, so it doesn't do any harm. Long term we should focus on #18234
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18234 | refactor: Replace boost::mutex,condition_var,chrono with std equivalents in scheduler by ajtowns · Pull Request #18234 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< MarcoFalke> 18234 also fixes the bug, by removing boost
< nothingmuch> fair enough, though i didn't feel qualified to review that
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Empact opened pull request #18260: refactor: Fix implicit value conversion in formatPingTime (master...2020-03-ping-time) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18260
< jonasschnelli> 0.19.1 detached sigs are up: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-detached-sigs/commits/0.19
< cfields_> jonasschnelli: need to tag first ;)
< cfields_> tagging now
< jonasschnelli> cfields_: oh. Right. Thanks...
< jonasschnelli> cfields_: whats sigs would it take if there is no tag? Just the head of the 0.19 branch?
< cfields_> jonasschnelli: it tries to checkout a ref with the same name as the release. So 'git reset --hard v0.19.1' (or something like that) would just fail.
< cfields_> ok, gitian builders: detached sigs for v0.19.1 are up
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] naumenkogs opened pull request #18261: Erlay: bandwidth-efficient transaction relay protocol (master...erlay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18261
< instagibbs> luke-jr, unless I have serious misunderstandings, erlay shouldn't really effected anymore than flooding relay with respect to diverse network policies
< instagibbs> it's basically a batching of INVs you would have sent your peer, then compact exchange of that difference
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr reopened pull request #15600: lockedpool: When possible, use madvise to avoid including sensitive information in core dumps or forked process memory spaces (master...lockedpool_dontdump) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15600
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #18262: bnb: exit selection when best_waste is 0 (master...bnb-waste-zero) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18262
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gzhao408 opened pull request #18263: rpc change setmocktime check to use IsMockableChain (master...rpc-setmocktime-check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18263