< fanquake>
The email they are responding to I sent on the 12 October. Still haven't received any response to issues opened in the maintainer group in regards to our "load more" or "show/hide" issues.
< fanquake>
Actually, we have got a response in regards to the show/hide issue. It's that they cannot reproduce. I assume that's because they waited 5 days to look, and it's since been merged / something has changed.
< wumpus>
fanquake: ideally we could disable hiding of items completely for the entire repository, but i guess that would bring back the unicorns
< wumpus>
surprising how fast computers and internet connections are nowadays but showing a moderate number of items of text is still problematic
< fanquake>
wumpus: I’ll ask, but yea probably. My understanding is that the hiding was introduced to fix the fact that they can’t load enough page content at once.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #20328: cirrus: Skip tasks on the gui repo main branch (master...2011-cirrusSkip) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20328
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] dgpv opened pull request #20329: docs/descriptors.md: Remove hardened marker in the path after xpub (master...fix-descriptors-md-hardened-after-xpub) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20329
< jonatack>
just pushed an update after re-reviewing and re-testing each commit
< jonatack>
(to 20305)
< achow101>
I will review those eventually
< meshcollider>
I guess the key topic is 1) which of the two (fairly similar) directions do we want to take, and 2) which of the side changes in each PR do we also want in 0.21
< achow101>
are they mutually exclusive?
< jonatack>
i think the directions are fundamentally different, apart from the feeRate -> fee_rate alias in 20250 that is orthogonal
< jonatack>
achow101:: if merged before the release, yes
< jonatack>
achow101:: if merged after, then 20305 doesn't work and would need to be overhauled
< jonatack>
as it replaces the overloading with the new fixed-unit fee rate param
< achow101>
hmm ok. i'll try to get to them today
< achow101>
I haven't looked at them yet, so no opinion
< jonatack>
and if the overloading is released in 0.21, then we'll have to support it and then deprecate it
< achow101>
ngl it feels like we should make an rpc api v2 and just overhaul everything
< jonatack>
i think it's workable to improve the current one
< luke-jr>
I'm in the middle of rebasing 20250
< achow101>
but maybe i'm just in the "blow up everything" mindset
< jonatack>
i sort of detail the steps in the PR description
< meshcollider>
achow101: I think both are true ;)
< jonatack>
luke-jr: ping me when you're ready and i'll review. even if 20305 is merged, i think the commit that does feeRate -> fee_rate is good
< jonatack>
i didn't do that since i saw that you proposed it
< meshcollider>
I am slightly more in favour of the fixed-unit param, but don't have a big preference
< meshcollider>
And yes it's definitely good to have fee_rate consistent
< jonatack>
luke-jr: did you see the twitter poll; people prefer sat/vB over btc/kvB by 10 to 1
< meshcollider>
Yeah I think sat/vB is definitely the way to go IMO
< meshcollider>
it doesn't seem like there are many others here to discuss so let's just leave it as an #action to review and weigh in on the two alternatives
< jonatack>
oh, not 10:1, the ratio is much higher
< meshcollider>
luke-jr: fee_rate_sat_vb does that :p
< jonatack>
luke-jr: agreed!
< achow101>
I might go through 18836 on stream on Monday. The hard part is figuring out the BDB format
< luke-jr>
meshcollider: but with an ugly name
< luke-jr>
looks like bumpfee is the only thing in 0.20 with "fee_rate"
< luke-jr>
hrm
< jonatack>
achow101: is 18836 ready for review? if yes, on it tomorrow
< meshcollider>
jonatack: yes it's been ready for weeks :p
< achow101>
jonatack: yes. it has been for a while
< jonatack>
ok ty
< meshcollider>
I have been slack personally
< jonatack>
luke-jr: yep; i'm thinking we add the ugly named one (at least you won't call it by mistake), then deprecate the btc/kB ones, then alias the ugly one to fee_rate
< jonatack>
over a couple releases
< jonatack>
maybe with a config option to opt in to the new fee_rate param in sat/vB
< luke-jr>
jonatack: that still has a risk
< luke-jr>
the only clean solution I see is to use BTC/kB everywhere
< luke-jr>
:/
< jonatack>
it seems users really want sat/vb
< luke-jr>
well, we've really wanted satoshis for amounts since like 0.3 too
< jonatack>
and the risk is a too-low feerate, not a too-high one, and if we put it behind an opt-in config option...
< jonatack>
idk seems manageable
< luke-jr>
true, and it only affects bumpfee
< luke-jr>
so too-low is presumably rejected, and if not you can always replace it with the right one
< jonatack>
and fundraw and
< luke-jr>
no, fundraw uses feeRate
< jonatack>
funded psbt
< jonatack>
anyway, it's a limited risk
< luke-jr>
only bumpfee uses fee_rate in 0.20 afaict
< luke-jr>
I'm going to abandon my rebase and close 20250 then, ok?
< luke-jr>
IMO fee_rate_sat_vb should just get renamed to fee_rate
< jonatack>
luke-jr: no deprecation process? config option opt-in?
< luke-jr>
jonatack: no, not needed considering
< luke-jr>
maybe support -deprecatedrpc=fee_rate or something, but meh
< jonatack>
i'm ok with remaning if reviewers are
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr closed pull request #20250: Bugfix: RPC/Wallet: Make BTC/kB and sat/B fee modes work sanely (master...rpcwallet_explicit_fixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20250
< meshcollider>
we should take a bit from 20250 as previously discussed, like the feeRate -> fee_rate though
< jonatack>
luke-jr: if 20305 doesn't get in for 0.21 then I think we need 20250, so keep it around
< jonatack>
meshcollider: if we don't rename to fee_rate, agreed
< meshcollider>
I think with the right "too low" errors in place, just using fee_rate is fine, but I am not going to speak on behalf of all reviewers :p
< luke-jr>
meshcollider: that's part of 20305 with my suggestion
< luke-jr>
feeRate would continue to be BTC/kB (deprecated) until we remove it entirely
< luke-jr>
(though I don't really care if we just remove it right now too)
< jonatack>
ok let me know, i'll be active on updating as time is short
< meshcollider>
achow101 can weigh in when he reviews
< meshcollider>
Alright anything else to discuss today?
< jonatack>
feeRate in walletcreatefundedpsbt and bumpfee iirc
< meshcollider>
#endmeeting
< achow101>
lightningbot still dead :(
< lightningbot>
achow101: Error: "still" is not a valid command.
< jonatack>
meshcollider: congrats on the john pfeffer support! (just seeing it now) 🎉
< luke-jr>
aj
< meshcollider>
jonatack: yeah it's super nice of him!
< meshcollider>
achow101: lol the bot doesn't like being called dead
< meshcollider>
Unlike usual, when I started the meeting today, I got an automatic list of commands send to me by core-meetingbot
< meshcollider>
Maybe that's a WIP
< achow101>
ooh
< achow101>
maybe we can delegate the pinging to the bot too
< meshcollider>
That would be super handy
< jonatack>
meshcollider: with you and luke-jr voting for fee_rate_sat_vb -> fee_rate, LMK if I should start updating. Meanwhile, queuing up and building 18836
< meshcollider>
achow101: what do you think ^
< meshcollider>
kallewoof might also like to weigh in?