< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MitchellTesla opened pull request #22081: Test - Do not patch or merge** adds gif image to readme description (master...test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22081
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #22081: Test - Do not patch or merge** adds gif image to readme description (master...test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22081
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] martinus opened pull request #22082: test: update nanobench from release 4.0.0 to 4.3.2 (master...2021-05-update-nanobench) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22082
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master cb7eba2 Hennadii Stepanov: build: Use Qt archive of the same version as the compiled binaries
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 22b8452 W. J. van der Laan: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22063: build: Use Qt archive of the same version as ...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #22063: build: Use Qt archive of the same version as the compiled binaries (master...210525-version) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22063
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 654472a Dhruv Mehta: [fuzz] Add serialization to deserialization test
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 35571d8 Dhruv Mehta: [fuzz] Occasional valid checksum for transport serialization fuzz test
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master e337145 Dhruv Mehta: [fuzz] Occasional valid magic bytes for transport serialization test
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #22029: [fuzz] Improve transport deserialization fuzz test coverage (master...v1-transport-serializer-fuzzing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22029
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #22086: test: remove BasicTestingSetup from unit tests that don't need it (master...remove_unneeded_test_setup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22086
< hebasto>
laanwj: could you have another look into #22025?
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 5cd7f8a Hennadii Stepanov: refactor: Do not expose CAddrMan members as protected without need
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 8caf60d Hennadii Stepanov: move-only: Group and re-order CAddrMan members by access type
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master ea1e5c2 W. J. van der Laan: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22025: refactor: Group and re-order CAddrMan members...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #22025: refactor: Group and re-order CAddrMan members by access type (master...210523-cam) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22025
< glozow>
darosior: heh, seemed a shame to lose so many review comments
< jamesob>
welcome to the new network, same as the old network
< laanwj>
hopefully not
< laanwj>
having to move IRC servers once was enough
< laanwj>
speaking of which, is anyone still on freenode? if so, it might be helpful to mention that the IRC meeting in 5 minutes will be here ,not there as originally planned
< core-meetingbot>
Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
< jamesob>
hi
< achow101>
hi
< michaelfolkson>
hi
< provoostenator>
hi
< meshcollider>
hi
< hebasto>
hi
< ariard>
hi
< fjahr>
hi
< laanwj>
last week was a bit hectic on IRC due to the server transition, but i don't think we have proposed meeting topics (if we do, please correct me)
< laanwj>
also if you have any last minute meeting topic, of course
< jamesob>
if we have nothing else, here's a quick update on assumeutxo: I'm towards the end of a (pretty involved) rebase and will be pushing that up soon. afterwards I'll run manual tests and start on writing some functional tests.
< achow101>
proposed topic: which versions to re-release with new windows code signing cert?
< ariard>
laanwj: you might need to update the meeting ping with few nicknames upgrade :)
< jarolrod>
hi
< laanwj>
ariard: if there's any you'd like to add let me know
< ariard>
laanwj: yours is changed at least
< jonatack>
_aj_: s/aj/_aj_/
< jonatack>
s/bluematt/BlueMatt/
< laanwj>
ariard: jonatack good point
< darosior>
hi
< laanwj>
#topic High priority for review
< core-meetingbot>
topic: High priority for review
< laanwj>
clearly the certificate change needs to be backported too
< laanwj>
oh, thats in there
< achow101>
are there enough things to be backported for 0.21.2? We did 0.21.1 only 4 weeks ago
< laanwj>
i mean, we're going to do a release anyway right
< laanwj>
normally i'd say no
< achow101>
true
< sipa>
right, given that there are repo changes for the new cert anyway, it'd necessitate doing the full build process over, and just the codesigning step?
< laanwj>
yeah! if it was a matter of simply attaching the signature (no rebuild) it would be different
< achow101>
I could just attach the signature.. it just wouldn't fit within gitian
< jonasschnelli>
does the new codesigning LLC obtains apple code signing certificates already?
< achow101>
jonasschnelli: no
< laanwj>
achow101: so it would need a different script than the normal signature attachment
< jonasschnelli>
They might want to see a D.U.N.S number (which could take a few days to get).
< achow101>
jonasschnelli: we have a duns number
< achow101>
laanwj: yes, and future gitian builds would get a different result
< jonasschnelli>
good... then a matter of minutes (and 99$) to get one
< achow101>
new release is the path of least resistance still I think
< laanwj>
yes
< achow101>
What about for the 0.19 branch then?
< achow101>
there haven't been any other backports
< laanwj>
no strong opinion on that, we could do a 0.19.2.1 if anyone really wants one, i'm not sure it's the effort just for a certificate update
< sipa>
how many 0.19 are there on the network?
< achow101>
oh, we never finished releasing 0.20.2, the latest tag there is for 0.20.2rc1. I guess now's the time to do that.
< laanwj>
achow101: hah we didn't finish the 0.20 release ... no one complained
< laanwj>
achow101: yes
< sipa>
that's going to be a *big* 0.20.2rc2 i guess
< sipa>
or just 0.20.3
< laanwj>
sipa: but people already on the network with 0.19 don't need to upgrade just to get a different codesigning cert :)
< laanwj>
after all, the certificate is for the installer only not the binary that is run
< dongcarl>
g_chainman de-globalization reviewers: Since we're just a few weeks away from feature freeze, I'd love to get bundle 6 in ASAP (bundle 7 will be the last one and removes all review-only assertions)
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jarolrod opened pull request #22088: doc: improve note on choosing posix mingw32 (master...windows-ubuntu-note) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22088
< jamesob>
dongcarl: will be reviewing that in the next few days
< dongcarl>
jamesob: Thanks :-)
< jonatack>
i'm preparing to push finished versions of the tor v2 removal and the inbound eviction protection generalized to multiple special networks (onion, i2p, others)
< laanwj>
i'm testing the torv2 removal PR on one of my nodes, haven't run into any problems yet
< laanwj>
and it's only connecting to torv3s as expected (even though the Tor is old enough to still support torv2)
< jonatack>
laanwj: thanks! i've been testing it very extensively these past days, including with seeds, etc, and all is well. am toying with bumping the Format version for the fuzzing inputs
< laanwj>
_aj_: added
< laanwj>
achow101: so first step, i guess, is to merge #22017 into master?
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/0.19 461b9b1 Andrew Chow: Update Windows code signing certificate
< cfields>
sorry I've missed this cert stuff. Can anyone give a quick tl;dr of what happened?
< achow101>
cfields: comodo unexpectedly revoked the previous cert when I tried to renew it. Then it was a pain to get a new cert because the validation rules have changed. So we had to make a new LLC for that and it took some time.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #22089: test: MiniWallet: fix fee calculation for P2PK and check tx vsize (master...202105-test-miniwallet-fix_p2pk_fee_calculation) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22089
< achow101>
the revocation was retroactive so all of our previous releases signed with that cert now won't install on windows
< laanwj>
dongcarl: yes, will look into that soon
< cfields>
ugh, right, I guess timestamped signatures don't help with that by design.
< cfields>
that's very annoying.
< cfields>
nice to see that revocation works as intended though, I guess :p
< dongcarl>
:-)
< laanwj>
very good that it works though slightly scary that it can just happen under us arbitarily
< laanwj>
happy it's only the installer that is signed, imagine if the actual binary was signed and suddenly was rejected when trying to start it
< sipa>
laanwj: i'm kind of surprised things don't already work that way