19:01:22 <wumpus> #startmeeting 19:01:26 <jonasschnelli> hi 19:01:27 <kanzure> hi 19:01:29 <achow101> hi 19:01:32 <jonasschnelli> (bot again down?) 19:01:33 <MarcoFalke> hi 19:01:36 <jonatack> hi 19:01:38 <michaelfolkson> hi 19:01:40 <fjahr> hi 19:01:41 <hebasto> hi 19:01:43 <rpite> hi 19:01:46 <meshcollider> hi 19:01:50 <warren> hi 19:01:52 <warren> hi 19:01:57 <wumpus> i did get a PM from the bot 19:02:16 <wumpus> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 aj amiti ariard bluematt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb glozow gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik 19:02:18 <wumpus> petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild wumpus 19:02:49 <wumpus> doesn't look like there are any topics proposed in http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt for this week 19:03:04 <wumpus> any last minute topics? 19:03:36 <warren> Is the TODO list of what needs to be written to release 0.22 with guix figured out? 19:03:52 <MarcoFalke> warren: dongcarl wanted to host a topic next week IIRC 19:04:02 <warren> k 19:04:06 <jamesob> hi 19:04:07 <aj> hi 19:04:37 <wumpus> #topic High priority for review 19:04:37 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review 19:04:46 <MarcoFalke> Can I haz #20944? 19:04:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20944 | rpc: Return total fee in getmempoolinfo by MarcoFalke ÷ Pull Request #20944 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:04:53 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 8 blockers, 1 bugfix, 2 chasing concept ACK 19:04:58 <MarcoFalke> (it is blocking some fuzzers I wrote) 19:05:25 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: added 19:05:26 <achow101> #17331 for me 19:05:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17331 | Use effective values throughout coin selection by achow101 ÷ Pull Request #17331 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:06:02 <wumpus> achow101: also added 19:06:12 <MarcoFalke> #20017 needs rebase, so can be removed for now? 19:06:15 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20017 | rpc: Add RPCContext by promag ÷ Pull Request #20017 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:06:20 <wumpus> 10 blockers again 19:06:28 <jamesob> Have a small fuzzer kink and a few comment updates on the highprio assumeutxo PR I'm going to address tonight 19:06:31 <jonatack> jonasschnelli: do you want to add #20962? 19:06:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20962 | Alter the ChaCha20Poly1305@Bitcoin AEAD to the new specification by jonasschnelli ÷ Pull Request #20962 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:06:41 <jonasschnelli> not for now 19:07:19 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: seems it's been needing rebase for two weeks 19:07:19 <MarcoFalke> jamesob: The fuzzer is a problem in master, I think 19:07:20 <jonasschnelli> I'd like to keep #15946 19:07:20 <jonatack> jonasschnelli: ok. i thought it might be the blocker for bip324 impl 19:07:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15946 | Allow maintaining the blockfilterindex when using prune by jonasschnelli ÷ Pull Request #15946 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:07:30 <wumpus> ping @promag 19:07:37 <jonasschnelli> jonatack: thanks. Need to finalize the BIP first 19:07:44 <promag> MarcoFalke: it has only 3 concept ack, not sure if itw worth rebasing 19:07:47 <sipa> can i have #bitcoin-core-dev #20861 ? 19:07:48 <sipa> eh 19:07:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20861 | BIP 350: Implement Bech32m and use it for v1+ segwit addresses by sipa ÷ Pull Request #20861 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:07:55 <wumpus> although it's for chasing concept ACK so i don't think it matters if it's rebased for concept ack 19:07:57 <jamesob> MarcoFalke: oh maybe in addition to this thing - I forgot to update fuzz based on a new lock annotation 19:08:09 <wumpus> only for blockers 19:08:12 <promag> wumpus: right 19:08:17 <MarcoFalke> Also #19716 doesn't pass gitian, so can be removed as well? (Maybe replace by #21036 because it is blocked on that)? 19:08:21 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19716 | build: Qt 5.15.x by fanquake ÷ Pull Request #19716 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:08:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21036 | gitian: Bump descriptors to Focal for 22.0 by fanquake ÷ Pull Request #21036 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:12 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: makes sense, done 19:10:24 <wumpus> any other topics? 19:10:28 <jonatack> #19145 has re-acks by provoostenator and I, seems close 19:10:31 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19145 | Add hash_type MUHASH for gettxoutsetinfo by fjahr ÷ Pull Request #19145 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:10:41 <MarcoFalke> topic: replace github? 19:10:47 <wumpus> jonatack: good to know, will have a look 19:11:12 <wumpus> #topic Replacing github 19:11:13 <core-meetingbot> topic: Replacing github 19:11:34 <jamesob> Oh boy 19:11:37 <wumpus> it's clear to me that this has to happen at some point but I don't think we found any projects ready for this 19:11:43 <jonasschnelli> didn't we had this topic recently? 19:12:20 <sipa> is there a concrete candidate to look at? 19:12:35 <wumpus> if there are, I'd suggest first setting up a parallel / mirror, so that people can try 19:12:41 <fjahr> It seems to be a constant topic since people get more and more frustrated 19:12:58 <wumpus> switching is not going to be a flag day thing 19:13:04 <MarcoFalke> sipa: Most of them seem "alpha" stage, so we'd have to play around with them 19:13:18 <luke-jr> was there a concrete problem with GitLab? 19:13:27 <dongcarl> Might this be an important enough thing that we should also look into building it ourselves / hacking existing open source solutions if none of the existing solutions work well enough? 19:13:28 <jamesob> I suspect that there will be even more frustration with an alternative. The big argument would be that github is a worrisome dependency to have 19:13:33 <wumpus> luke-jr: yes it's just another centralized thing 19:13:42 <promag> wont the alternative have other issues? 19:13:47 <aj> doing more tooling like gh-meta and ghwatch.py in the meantime seems like a good start? 19:13:52 <jamesob> promag: right 19:13:52 <luke-jr> wumpus: eh, as opposed to what? 19:13:55 <MarcoFalke> Funny, if GitHub had a simple moderator queue or other means of spam protection and a stable website, we probably wouln't be talking about this 19:14:02 <wumpus> aj: right, that's my idea 19:14:06 <fjahr> Maybe there should be a wiki page to collect promising projects, then people post there experiences with mirrors 19:14:22 <fjahr> Obviously this will be a long way 19:14:37 <wumpus> luke-jr: git-appraise, radicle, git-bug, and various other systems that use git for propagation instead of relying (entirely) on central hosted infrastructure 19:14:38 <jonasschnelli> aj: good point. 19:14:53 <jonasschnelli> We can enhance the UX with custom tools 19:15:11 <MarcoFalke> luke-jr: github and gitlab are hosted on the same infrastructure 19:15:28 <luke-jr> MarcoFalke: same? 19:15:30 <jamesob> We get a ton of utility out of the PR review flow; something that both has that and isn't centralized is going to be tough to find I think 19:15:32 <MarcoFalke> Though, it might be easier to build a two-way-mirror for review comments for gitlab 19:15:35 <wumpus> you can self-host gitlab or gitia etc but it'd be just another central server 19:15:37 <MarcoFalke> luke-jr: google cloud? 19:15:54 <wumpus> we need something that doesn't rely on a contributor to host something IMO 19:16:02 <aj> wumpus: there's also bugseverywhere fwiw https://bugs-everywhere.readthedocs.io/en/latest/tutorial.html 19:16:17 <wumpus> aj: ok definitely makes sense to keep track of these in a wiki 19:16:29 <wumpus> aj: this is too many for me to keep track of in my head :-) 19:16:45 <aj> wumpus: yeah, they're super hard to search for too 19:16:55 <aj> "git bug tracker"... 19:16:56 <fjahr> MarcoFalke: I don't think the infrastructure is causing the frustrations. Maybe the first question is: is the focus to fix usability issues with GH or to decentralize or we want to do both at the same time 19:17:13 <wumpus> I think we can do both at the same time 19:17:32 <wumpus> primarily it needs a sane way of doing code review that *doesn't* lose comments 19:18:03 <wumpus> this is the most serious issue with github, the collapsing comments and hidden diffs 19:18:24 <MarcoFalke> fjahr: the infrastructure is the cause for centralization (and the risk of getting shut down at any time). IIRC some countries can't access github 19:18:42 <fjahr> wumpus: maybe Gitlab doesn't lose comments, I don't know, but maybe that's a quick improvement on the usability front 19:19:09 <aj> MarcoFalke: they recently announced they'd opened back up to some of those countries iirc 19:19:13 <wumpus> fjahr: it's just not worth all the trouble of switching just to go to gitlab, you'll keep hopping 19:19:27 <MarcoFalke> aj: "some" ;) 19:19:30 <wumpus> aj: sure but who knows for how long the point is to not be dependent 19:19:36 <aj> MarcoFalke: one, maybe - https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-github-is-fully-available-in-iran/ 19:20:09 <fjahr> MarcoFalke: agree, centralization is the same at GL but it might fix the losing comments issue which most recent frustrations seemed to come from 19:21:07 <jamesob> I'm guessing there'll be other unknown frustrations that pop up given GL isn't as actively developed as GH (AFAIK); and there is a pretty big cost to switching; CI integrations and drahtbot then need to be changed over 19:21:17 <jamesob> IMO we should be sure we want to move to whatever we move to 19:21:22 <luke-jr> (btw, disclosure: my web browsers have been compromised for months due to https://github.com/greatsuspender/thegreatsuspender/issues/1263 ) 19:21:39 <MarcoFalke> wiki: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/GitHub-alternatives-for-Bitcoin-Core 19:21:45 <MarcoFalke> proudly hosted by GitHub 19:21:51 <fjahr> lol 19:21:54 <dongcarl> lol 19:21:59 <luke-jr> XD 19:22:02 <wumpus> jamesob: I agree, if we switch it needs to be with something we have control over ourselves and plan to stick with for a long time 19:22:38 <aj> MarcoFalke: i'm sure they'll remain proud to host it while it implies there's no alternatives to github? 19:22:58 <MarcoFalke> aj: Typing as we speak 19:23:02 <aj> heh 19:23:08 <luke-jr> lol 19:23:22 <aj> MarcoFalke: (missed opportunity to write "typing as i type") 19:23:39 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: thanks! 19:24:32 <jnewbery> so were the meetings that fanquake/theuni/moneyball had with GH just a waste of time? They listened and then didn't actually fix anything that's important for us? 19:24:40 <wumpus> I think that concludes the topic for now, please look around if you find projects and try them out 19:25:19 <wumpus> jnewbery: I don't think it's a waste of time to discover what your requirements are, whoever implements them 19:25:34 <jnewbery> it's astonishing to me that one of the most important pieces of infrastructure for the open source community is owned by one of the most capitalized companies in the world and they can't even get a webpage to load 19:26:03 <luke-jr> eh, one with a long history of deceptive warfare against open source 19:26:05 <aj> jnewbery: i feel like you're overrating how competent humanity is at making computers work... 19:26:07 <wumpus> I mean, yes, they didn't really do much, but talking about things like that was probably constructive anyway 19:26:46 <promag> jnewbery: hold on, we have dark theme 19:26:53 <jnewbery> wumpus: I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't have tried (and I'm very grateful that they did!), but github don't seem to have done anything about the problems. 19:26:53 <michaelfolkson> It is Big Corp syndrome. Post acquisition the magic dies 19:27:06 <wumpus> jnewbery: agree on that 19:27:24 <jonasschnelli> didn't we had a direct contact with GitHub for a while? 19:27:25 <jamesob> promag: lol 19:27:37 <fjahr> notes dark theme as hard requirement 19:27:43 <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: fanquake does have direct contact but they ignore him pretty much 19:27:57 <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: build up pressure? 19:28:08 <MarcoFalke> (not judging them. They probably have paying clients) 19:28:45 <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: I don't think open source is a priority for them 19:28:48 <sipa> fjahr: GH has a dark theme 19:28:51 <jonasschnelli> IMO GitHub has its flaws,.. but I don't see a better alternative and GH is certenly better than just tracking everything in a txt file 19:28:58 <wumpus> I was a paying client but stopped paying when they were taken over by Microsoft 19:28:59 <aj> #15847 #20227 #16472 #13411 might be useful 19:29:01 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15847 | Feedback for GitHub CEO ÷ Issue #15847 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:29:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20227 | Dependency on GitHub ÷ Issue #20227 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:29:03 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16472 | Github started banning/restricting whole countries ÷ Issue #16472 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:29:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13411 | Moving to self-hosted issue and patch management ÷ Issue #13411 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:29:13 <jonasschnelli> thanks aj 19:29:13 <fjahr> sipa: yeah, just for the switching candidates ;) 19:29:20 <sipa> ha yes 19:29:35 <promag> I wonder how would gitlab behave with big prs with tens of comments and code 19:29:48 <sipa> "tens of comments" 19:29:52 <jonatack> I don't think GitHub is incentized to make the changes that we would like; I suspect maintaining a very uniform UX is key for GitHub, which might preclude per-repo configurable feature toggling and adjustable interaction friction 19:29:53 <sipa> there's literally dozens of us! 19:30:02 <promag> thousands 19:30:32 <sipa> i think this discussion should move to the wiki; there isn't much to do here expect looking for alternatives and evaluating them 19:30:33 <jonatack> GitHub's aim appears to be more faceBook than myspace in UX standardization 19:30:44 <promag> their api probably returns everything no? 19:30:44 <sipa> and getting back to the topic in a meeting in a few weeks maybe 19:30:51 <jonasschnelli> I suggest that moneyball take up the contact again (as of #15847) 19:30:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15847 | Feedback for GitHub CEO ÷ Issue #15847 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:31:01 <wumpus> sipa: agree 19:31:06 <jamesob> jonatack: *adds myspace to list of alternatives* 19:31:09 <jonatack> which would explain why even dark theme took so long for GitHub to agree to do 19:31:09 <fjahr> jonatack: I they would load comments as well as fb that would be great :D 19:31:56 <wumpus> any other topics? 19:32:31 <wumpus> #endmeeting