< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 6 commits to 0.21: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e358b43f7d89...0fe5b6130cc1
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 48fc675 Andrew Chow: wallet: Use existing feerate instead of getting a new one
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 34c89f9 Andrew Chow: wallet: Replace nFeeRateNeeded with effective_fee
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 bcd7166 Andrew Chow: wallet: Move long term feerate setting to CreateTransaction
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #21520: [0.21] wallet: Avoid requesting fee rates multiple times during coin selection (0.21...0.21-createtx-same-feerate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21520
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c6b30ccb2eee...585cbe225753
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5f2be6e Hennadii Stepanov: Remove no longer used contrib/bitcoin-qt.pro from the repo
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 585cbe2 fanquake: Merge #21695: Remove no longer used contrib/bitcoin-qt.pro from the repo
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #21695: contrib: remove no longer used contrib/bitcoin-qt.pro (master...210415-pro) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21695
< wumpus> let's move #20966 and #19362 to 0.21.2?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20966 | banman: save the banlist in a JSON format on disk by vasild · Pull Request #20966 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19362 | rpc/blockchain: Reset scantxoutset progress before inferring descriptors by prusnak · Pull Request #19362 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< fanquake> wumpus: ACK. Had been thinking similar
< wumpus> fanquake: okay done !
< fanquake> CI now fixed in #21701, so that is also ready for review
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21701 | [0.21] Speedy trial activation for Taproot by achow101 · Pull Request #21701 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< fanquake> We'll also want to get #21614 in
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21614 | [0.21] test: Backports by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #21614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< aj> 21701 conflicts with 21614?
< fanquake> If the changes in 4546ac5af1c4105a0cf78a407fefcb189822bcf5 in 21614 are covered in a commit in 21701, we can drop that change from 21614
< aj> 21377 should have cherry-picked cleanly on top of 21614; i guess some/all of them were included in the "fuzz: test versionbits delayed activation" commit though?
< fanquake> Yes it looks like some of those changes are included in b529222ad18f7facbaff394455875b4aa65d653e
< wumpus> agree it is not good if the last two PRs conflict, that introduces a rebase bottleneck
< fanquake> I think if we get 21701 in. We can always open a PR to make the required followups. Otherwise, marco will be active soon, and should be able to rebase/modify 21614
< fanquake> aj is #21691 meant to be backported as well?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21691 | test: Check that no versionbits are re-used by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #21691 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< aj> fanquake: doesn't need to be
< aj> fanquake: (it's only relevant if we introduce more soft forks that reuse version bits)
< aj> one of them's included in the NEVER_ACTIVE commit, which looks like it means the vbits fuzzer won't work for earlier commits
< wumpus> oh yea i think aiming for activating one soft fork is enough for this release, or do you mean releasing without it will make reusing the bits impossible in the future?
< aj> no, it's just a test to make sure we're not currently reusing bits
< wumpus> right, thanks
< wumpus> at least backporting tests is very low risk
< aj> safely reusing bits in the future just means we need to make sure the first activation is actually finished (FAILED/ACTIVE) and preferably buried (SoftForkHeight = 987654) rather than signaled
< aj> (or we could switch to signaling by something other than nVersion and avoid worrying about bit reuse entirely)
< aj> (we've got another 9 bits before we need to reuse any and another 3 additional bits reusing bits for buried activations before we have to worry about this. would be impressive if we added that many soft forks to 0.21...)
< aj> err, 10+3 not 9+3
< aj> oh no, i'm counting taproot, 9+3 was right
< wumpus> that *would* be impressive yes
< wumpus> definitely doesn't sound like we're going to run out of bits any time soon
< aj> be nice if "make check" were faster :(
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 11 commits to 0.21: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0fe5b6130cc1...e3b76b6c13f8
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 2e9e7f4 Anthony Towns: tests: pull ComputeBlockVersion test into its own function
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 1c01645 Anthony Towns: tests: test ComputeBlockVersion for all deployments
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 f9517e6 Anthony Towns: tests: clean up versionbits test
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #21701: [0.21] Speedy trial activation for Taproot (0.21...0.21-taproot-st) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21701
< MarcoFalke> time for tag and gitian?
< fanquake> #21614 ?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21614 | [0.21] test: Backports by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #21614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< MarcoFalke> fanquake: 0.21.2
< fanquake> righto
< fanquake> Reckon we can tag an rc1 then
< jnewbery> :rocket:
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] naumenkogs closed pull request #19843: Refactoring and minor improvement for self-advertisements (master...2020-08-refactor-advertiselocal) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19843
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 5 commits to 0.21: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e3b76b6c13f8...f8bbee425e46
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 dfeb6c1 Vasil Dimov: test: use pointers in denialofservice_tests/peer_discouragement
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 b765f41 Vasil Dimov: test: also check disconnect in denialofservice_tests/peer_discouragement
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 79cdb4a Vasil Dimov: test: make sure non-IP peers get discouraged and disconnected
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #21614: [0.21] test: Backports (0.21...2104-21Backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21614
< aj> release notes and an update of bips.md ("without mainnet activation") probably should be done before rc1?
< fanquake> aj: did you want to open a PR?
< aj> fanquake: no i want to have a pizza :)
< fanquake> aj: heh fair. I may have just sat down in front of the footy
< wumpus> okay tagging rc1
< wumpus> (well, first the translations and manual page updates etc)
< fanquake> wumpus: sounds good to me
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to 0.21: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f8bbee425e46...329eafa7f453
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 ab20518 W. J. van der Laan: gui: Pre-rc1 translations update
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 e85dfdb W. J. van der Laan: build: Bump version to 0.21.1rc1
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 329eafa W. J. van der Laan: doc: Regenerate manual pages for 0.21.1rc1
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed tag v0.21.1rc1: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.21.1rc1
< hebasto> \o/
< roconnor> :tada:
< wumpus> ^^
< fanquake> 🚀
< fanquake> unfortunately I'm heading out, so will have to gitian build in the morning
< provoostenator> first!
< emzy> third!
< jonatack> sixth with a 4-core laptop 😛
< wumpus> i suppose we are not going to do codesigning this time? (or only for macos?)
< achow101> only macos
< wumpus> ok!
< midnight> have to get my gitian box back functional again.. :-/
< achow101> I'm going to be moving forward with setting up a LLC for the code signing stuff, as a backup plan at least. does anyone else (other than me and jonasschnelli) need/want to be part of it?
< sipa> that can always be changed later, i suppose?
< achow101> it's harder to change later
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dergoegge opened pull request #21706: log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by globally rate limiting LogPrintf(…) (master...g_log_ratelimiting) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21706
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] mzumsande opened pull request #21707: test: Extend functional tests for addr relay (master...202104_test_getaddr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21707
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #21708: build: Drop pointless sed commands (master...210416-sed) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21708
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #21709: doc: update doc/reduce-memory.md peer connections info (master...update-reduce-memory-doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21709
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #21710: doc: update help docs for -addnode config option and addnode rpc (master...update-addnode-docs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21710
< jonasschnelli> achow101: Agree that this is a good backup plan.
< jonasschnelli> It looks like the swiss association takes not too much time to setup. The documenta have now be written and will be submitted (probably early next week) to the register
< achow101> ok, that should be faster than creating the LLC
< jonasschnelli> we will see... you never know how long it requires to pass the swiss register
< jonasschnelli> and there is the word "Bitcoin" in the association name...
< jonasschnelli> which I'm sure will lead to longer processing times and some dbl-checks.
< sipa> jonasschnelli: good to hear
< jonasschnelli> achow101: I pulled master from your signapple and signed 0.21.1rc1 and did a gitian test build.. where I get:
< jonasschnelli> fatal error: signed.temp/codesign_allocate: size for '-a x86_64 227000' not a multiple of 16
< jonasschnelli> codesign however reported "Code signature is valid"
< achow101> jonasschnelli: for 0.21, you need to use the with-codesign-allocate tag and use macport's codesign_allocate
< achow101> otherwise I think our apply script won't work
< jonasschnelli> ah.. right... let me try again
< achow101> this was changed in master to use the apply command I added to signapple, but that wasn't backported to 0.21
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl opened pull request #21711: guix: Add full installation and usage documentation (master...2021-03-guix-docs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21711
< jonasschnelli> okay.. worked. Pushing the signature now
< jonasschnelli> macOS sig for 0.21.1rc1 is pushed: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-detached-sigs/tree/v0.21.1rc1
< achow101> Signature appears to be valid, but opening the .app results in "Bitcoin Core.app was blocked from use because it is not from an identified developer"
< achow101> Oh, it's because of the notarization crap
< jonasschnelli> achow101: Yes. Right.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #21712: qa: Test default include_mempool value of gettxout (master...2021-04-gettxout) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21712
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] rebroad opened pull request #21713: Refactor ProcessNewBlock to reduce code duplication (master...RefactorProcessNewBlock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21713