< ja> wumpus: i propose adding a README.txt in the secure 0.9.5 directory that says "The compiled binaries of this release are vulnerable to CVE-X, but the source release is unaffected. Before compilation, make sure you have a libupnp release with version at least Y. See other 0.9.5 directory for the vulnerable binaries."
< wumpus> ja: sgtm
< fanquake> 🚀
< wumpus> i'm not quite sure why we have https://bitcoincore.org/bin/block-chain/ with a block chain torrent from 2017
< sipa> haha
< wumpus> let's either delete it or move it to an "archive" directory
< fanquake> ACK
< wikipedofile> yeah. i was going to do that earlier but got sidetracked. i approve!
< wumpus> ok and "insecure" is a symlink to insecure-CVE-2015-6031 now
< BlueMatt> 👍
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 commit to 0.21: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/329eafa7f453...5577e0a4867c
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 5577e0a W. J. van der Laan: doc: Add PR and author list to release notes for 0.21.1
< wumpus> would anyone like to write something about taproot activation for the 0.21.1 release notes?
< wumpus> i think it is needed
< fanquake> there's a good chance harding will have already written something appropriate
< aj> oh, i didn't even think of stealing from harding/optech, what a good idea
< aj> or should it be more thorough like https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.13.1/ was?
< wumpus> that would definitely work, for release notes a brief description is generally apt
< wumpus> though the important thing is to describe the activation mechanism i think
< harding> I can write something tomorrow.
< harding> (But re using stuff from Optech, please feel free anytime. Everything there is MIT licensed.)
< harding> I think we'd want to descibe a little bit about what taproot is for anyone who hasn't been paying attention do dev, what users need to do for activation, and what miners need to do for activation.
< harding> Alos mention that ST can fail and, if it does, that doesn't mean we're done with taproot.
< wumpus> yes that would be perfect
< harding> I'll get something up on the devwiki by this time tommorrow and will post a link here for others to review and edit.
< wumpus> and good to know stuff from optech is freely licensed i don't think i realized that
< wumpus> for now i'm going to send an announcement mail with just the change list
< wumpus> like rc announcements always really
< wumpus> might be useful for getting immediate feedback on whose build mismatches and how exactly: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools/pull/91
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21727: refactor: Move more stuff to blockstorage (master...2104-blockstorage) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21727
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0dd7b234895b...a47ae618a00c
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a411494 klementtan: rpc: Improve getblock error message for invalid data type.
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a47ae61 fanquake: Merge #21718: rpc: Improve error message for getblock invalid datatype.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #21718: rpc: Improve error message for getblock invalid datatype. (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21718
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a47ae618a00c...ed133fe005d8
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 55d8583 Hennadii Stepanov: script: Add trusted key for hebasto
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ed133fe W. J. van der Laan: Merge #21615: script: Add trusted key for hebasto
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #21615: script: Add trusted key for hebasto (master...210406-key) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21615
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ed133fe005d8...17b51cd5cb9c
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9a06535 R E Broadley: Refactor ProcessNewBlock to reduce code duplication
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 17b51cd MarcoFalke: Merge #21713: Refactor ProcessNewBlock to reduce code duplication
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #21713: Refactor ProcessNewBlock to reduce code duplication (master...RefactorProcessNewBlock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21713
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/17b51cd5cb9c...d4300a10ddd6
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f81ef43 João Barbosa: rpc: Keep default argument value in correct type
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bee56c7 João Barbosa: rpc: Check default value type againts argument type
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d4300a1 MarcoFalke: Merge #21679: rpc: Keep default argument value in correct type
< wumpus> welcome hebasto ! 🎉
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #21679: rpc: Keep default argument value in correct type (master...2021-04-rpc-defaults) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21679
< hebasto> wumpus: thanks, I'll do my best for the project
< fanquake> I'm going to assume it was #21713 that pointlessly changed the permissions of the file net_processing.cpp
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21713 | Refactor ProcessNewBlock to reduce code duplication by rebroad · Pull Request #21713 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< promag> ya it did :/
< jonatack> congrats hebasto 👍
< hebasto> jonatack: thanks
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d4300a10ddd6...83c715415a88
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9053b88 Pierre K: update docstring in feature_csv_activation.py
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 83c7154 MarcoFalke: Merge #20857: test: update documentation in feature_csv_activation.py
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #20857: test: update documentation in feature_csv_activation.py (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20857
< MarcoFalke> fanquake: Ist there a way for git to properly display the permission change?
< MarcoFalke> For me it just shows the change in a white color (like the file name), so my brain skips it
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #21728: remove executable flag for src/net_processing.cpp (master...2021-remove-exec-flag-from-net_processing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21728
< wumpus> MarcoFalke: i don't know specifically but if it exists it is likely one of the color.diff settings http://git-scm.com/docs/git-config#Documentation/git-config.txt-colordiffltslotgt
< MarcoFalke> Hmm "git config color.diff.meta magenta" just changes from white(bold) to magenta, but doesn't highlight the permission diff
< wumpus> maybe a linter that ensures the right permissions on the right kind of file would make sense to prevent #21728 like issues
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21728 | remove executable flag for src/net_processing.cpp by theStack · Pull Request #21728 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> there is only a very limited number of files that should have execute permission
< sipa> .sh files, perhaps some .py ones?
< wumpus> "scripts that have a hash-bang" i guess
< wumpus> we would never check in an actual binary
< MarcoFalke> ./contrib/guix/guix-clean doesn't have an extension, but a bang
< wumpus> yea i commented on that when it was renamed, the idea behind having no extension was that it doesn't have to be renamed again when porting to python, but it does make things harder in this regard :-)
< sipa> hashbangs are essy to grep for :)
< MarcoFalke> #21729
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21729 | Write linter to check file permissions · Issue #21729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/83c715415a88...cfec4a1dad21
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8cac292 glozow: [test] remove invalid test from tx_valid.json
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8a365df glozow: [test] fix bug in ExcludeIndividualFlags
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5aee73d glozow: [test] minor improvements / followups
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #21280: test: bug fix in transaction_tests (master...2021-02-test-bug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21280
< Arvidt> I have a Bitcoin binary download script that determines the latest version by parsing the output of 'wget -q -O - https://bitcoin.org/bin/' but there is no subfolder bitcoin-core-0.21.1/ in the output, while when I open https://bitcoin.org/bin/ with Firefox, the 0.21.1 subfolder is shown? Before I never had problems with my script. Also tried wget with --no-cache, but that did not help.
< Arvidt> With the above wget command the output I get is
< Arvidt> <a href="bitcoin-core-0.20.0/">bitcoin-core-0.20.0/</a> 03-Jun-2020 10:15 -
< Arvidt> <a href="bitcoin-core-0.20.1/">bitcoin-core-0.20.1/</a> 01-Aug-2020 12:40 -
< Arvidt> <a href="bitcoin-core-0.21.0/">bitcoin-core-0.21.0/</a> 14-Jan-2021 18:05 -
< Arvidt> <a href="bitcoin-core-0.9.5/">bitcoin-core-0.9.5/</a> 27-Mar-2017 19:45 -
< harding> Arvidt: I don't see a 0.21.1 folder on bitcoin.org/bin/ ; are you sure you're seeing it? In any case, the preferred location to get the binaries is from https://bitcoincore.org/bin/
< Arvidt> Thanks, you are right, with Firefox I was on https://bitcoincore.org/bin/ there is the 0.21.1 but also with Firefox _not_ on https://bitcoin.org/bin/
< Arvidt> wget -q -O - https://bitcoincore.org/bin/ shows the 0.21.1 But in the past years I always used bicoin.org. This is confusing
< bitcoin-git> [gui] hebasto merged pull request #276: Elide long strings in their middle in the Peers tab (master...210410-elide) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/276
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cfec4a1dad21...13d27b452d4b
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4e06133 Hennadii Stepanov: qt: Elide long strings in their middle in the Peers tab
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 13d27b4 Hennadii Stepanov: Merge bitcoin-core/gui#276: Elide long strings in their middle in the Peer...
< Arvidt> I changed the hostname in my script from bitcoin.org to bitcoincore.org now it is working again. And the download speed is very fast now that's fine
< promag> who knows the correct doxygen format as of today?
< promag> we just follow that then? I'm asking because I see different "flavours" in our code
< promag> even there it gives like 1000 alternatives
< jnewbery> There's no guidance in our style guide about which version to use, as far as I'm aware
< jnewbery> I personally always use the /** Javadoc style for commenting functions, classes and members
< promag> thanks
< promag> jnewbery: perfect!
< hebasto> kindly asking ppl who is interested in improving translation process to look into #21694
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21694 | build: Use XLIFF file to provide more context to Transifex translators by hebasto · Pull Request #21694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< midnight> ls
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipsorcery opened pull request #21731: Update msvc build to use Qt5.12.10 binaries. (master...msvc_qt5.12.10) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21731
< ja> how can i know, on transifex, the progress of my submitted translation, and whether i had incorrectly translated anything?
< hebasto> ja: for v22 the Transifex translation will be opened on 2021-06-01 and merged into the code base during the release process
< hebasto> #20851
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20851 | Release schedule for 22.0 · Issue #20851 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< hebasto> about correctness you coulr reach out your language coordinator
< hebasto> *could
< hebasto> recent translations update for v0.21 was in ab205181912e83166496f0e7a1f5a1879fcd376f
< provoostenator> #21238 is maybe ready to merge? It's part of / blocking taproot wallet.
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21238 | A few descriptor improvements to prepare for Taproot support by sipa · Pull Request #21238 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< provoostenator> aj: you should rebase https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/commits/anyprevout and make it a draft PR :-)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #21732: MOVEONLY: Move common init code to init/common (master...pr/initc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21732
< harding> Disclosure, the "development history overview" set of links points to things almost all written by me. I've been told by others that they think it's a particularly useful resource, but please anyone feel free to remove it if you think its's inappropriate.
< ja> harding: i dunno if this is deliberately omitted but wouldn't it be good to have a estimated time of the lock-in block?
< ja> if a single estimated value cannot put, because it would lead some people to think it is exact, maybe it would be helpful to point to some resource that lets people estimate, or which explains the distribution. like e.g. http://r6.ca/blog/20180225T160548Z.html
< belcher> harding might be worth mentioning batch validation as a benefit of taproot too
< harding> ja: oh, I thought that was in there; maybe I deleted it from an earlier draft. I do agree it would be good.
< harding> belcher: I'll try to work that in if I can keep it short. Thanks!
< belcher> seems good to me
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dplusplus1024 opened pull request #21733: build: Re-add command to install vcpkg (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21733
< promag> #20017 can be removed from Chasing Concept ACK
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20017 | rpc: Add RPCContext by promag · Pull Request #20017 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub