19:00:31 <wumpus> #startmeeting 
19:00:31 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Apr 29 19:00:31 2021 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings.
19:00:32 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
19:00:33 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: no
19:00:55 <michaelfolkson> hi
19:00:57 <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
19:00:59 <meshcollider> hi
19:00:59 <wumpus> petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild wumpus
19:01:01 <hebasto> hi
19:01:03 <jonatack> hi
19:01:05 <sipsorcery> hi
19:01:11 <ariard> hi
19:01:13 <achow101> hi
19:01:19 <Murch> hey
19:01:21 <jonasschnelli> hi
19:01:31 <sipa> hi
19:01:50 <wumpus> no proposed meeting topics in http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt
19:01:54 <wumpus> any last minute topics?
19:02:25 <wumpus> have any blocking issues been reported with 0.21.1rc1?
19:02:25 <achow101> 0.21.1 final?
19:02:29 <wumpus> achow101: right
19:03:28 <wumpus> #topic High priority for eview
19:03:28 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for eview
19:03:31 <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
19:03:31 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review
19:04:09 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 9 blockers, no bugfixes, nothing chasing concept ACK
19:04:21 <wumpus> anything to add or remove, or that is ready for merge?
19:05:11 <wumpus> we merged some quite big ones this week
19:05:17 <sipa> cool
19:05:27 <dongcarl> Could we add #21767? It's the second-to-last bundle in chainman-deglobalizing
19:05:28 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21767 | [Bundle 6/n] Prune g_chainman usage in auxiliary modules by dongcarl · Pull Request #21767 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:05:30 <wumpus> ryanofsky: anything new for you to add?
19:06:27 <wumpus> dongcarl: added!
19:07:08 <sipa> dongcarl: what's on the critical path for guix building?
19:07:38 <dongcarl> #21462 is the main one!
19:07:40 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21462 | guix: Add guix-{attest,verify} scripts by dongcarl · Pull Request #21462 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:08:01 <jeremyrubin> hi
19:08:26 <wumpus> that one is almost ready for merge no?
19:08:56 <dongcarl> wumpus: Yes I believe so!
19:09:01 <wumpus> has had quite a lot of testing, including by me, not sure there's anything left to do
19:09:36 <wumpus> re-ACKing after the last round of changes i suppose
19:09:56 <dongcarl> Yeah the last round of changes is somewhat non-trivial, so reACK would be good
19:10:08 <wumpus> good to know, will take a look at it
19:10:11 <michaelfolkson> ryanofsky process separation only has 3 more PRs :) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/10
19:10:12 <dongcarl> I've been updating my other PRs/branches in the meantime. codesigning is in much better shape now
19:10:33 <wumpus> michaelfolkson: anything that is clearly next in the series?
19:10:48 <jeremyrubin> I don't think ethan is here but he was telling me #21045 should be RTM
19:10:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21045 | build: adds switch to enable/disable randomized base address in MSVC builds by EthanHeilman · Pull Request #21045 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:32 <jonatack> #19521 has acks by provoostenator_, promag and myself and pre-rebase tested ACKs from several other people
19:11:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19521 | Coinstats Index by fjahr · Pull Request #19521 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:39 <dongcarl> wumpus: The next one in the multiprocess series would be #10102 I believe
19:11:44 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10102 | [experimental] Multiprocess bitcoin by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10102 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:48 <wumpus> jeremyrubin: looks like it
19:11:57 <ariard> michaelfolkson: well you can pursue process separation further in the future by splitting server code in its own process
19:12:07 <ariard> like all the indexes, i've an old trying to do that
19:12:28 <wumpus> dongcarl: ok, the [experimental] tag makes me less sure it should be in high prio now :)
19:13:07 <dongcarl> wumpus: Yeah we could probably come back to it next week when ryanofsky's had a chance to rebase and update :-)
19:13:18 <wumpus> dongcarl: good point
19:13:31 <wumpus> jonatack: looks close too then!
19:13:40 <michaelfolkson> wumpus dongcarl: Indeed
19:14:34 <michaelfolkson> ariard: Nothing is ever entirely finished ;)
19:14:58 <wumpus> #topic 0.21.1 final
19:14:58 <core-meetingbot> topic: 0.21.1 final
19:15:33 <wumpus> 0.21.1rc1 has been out for a while, at least i haven't heard of anyone noticing problems with it, so it might be time to label it as -final soon
19:16:05 <achow101> I think we should do final soon
19:16:17 <achow101> signaling begins in a few days
19:16:23 <meshcollider> Agreed
19:16:26 <wumpus> right
19:16:36 <jonasschnelli> the win signing certs are still missing though
19:16:41 <wumpus> let's tag it after the meeting then
19:16:46 <jonasschnelli> (association registration in in progress though)
19:17:11 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: we're not going to be able to wait for that, we can do the windows signingafter it arrives i guess
19:17:21 <jonasschnelli> yes. agree
19:17:24 <Murch> achow101: in 289 blokcs :)
19:17:43 <wumpus> there is no reason other platforms need to wait for the windows sig after all :)
19:18:16 <achow101> that also leads to the question of how we are going to re-release with the new cert
19:18:37 <sipa> 0.21.1.1 ?
19:18:43 <wumpus> does that need to be a new release at all?
19:18:55 <wumpus> just sign it, upload the binary, or am i missing something
19:19:03 <sipa> hmm, right
19:19:13 <achow101> the gitian job requires the tag
19:19:14 <sipa> no repo changes at all?
19:19:27 <achow101> there will be a repo change for the new cert, although I can probably work around that
19:19:39 <wumpus> oh in that case 0.21.1.1 makes sense
19:19:41 <achow101> I don't think the gitian job actually needs the cert in repo, but the making the signature does
19:19:48 <wumpus> i didn't know it needed a repo change
19:19:52 <wumpus> no need to do anything to work around it
19:20:15 <luke-jr> why would it need a repo change? O.o
19:20:26 <jonasschnelli> manual sign and manual verification and gitian-builder sugnatures?
19:20:54 <achow101> luke-jr: the cert is in the repo at contrib/windeploy/win-codesign.cert
19:20:57 <jonasschnelli> Would though depend on if one could verify the code signed binary easly
19:21:04 <luke-jr> achow101: but is that used?
19:21:08 <achow101> luke-jr: yes
19:21:15 <luke-jr> :/
19:21:41 <achow101> but only by the code signer, so it can be worked around if we really want to
19:22:02 <achow101> the other issue is the detached-sigs repo which would then need the version tag to be force pushed to a commit that has the win sigs
19:22:16 <achow101> that probably won't play well with gitian
19:22:41 <achow101> easiest solution would be do to a x.x.x.1 release for all affected versions
19:22:49 <wumpus> let's just do that
19:23:36 <wumpus> we have more often used minor-minor releases for architecture specific changes
19:23:52 <jonasschnelli> lets first try to get a code signing certificate. :/
19:24:02 <sipa> +1 to both
19:24:04 <sipa> :)
19:24:38 <wumpus> any other topics for this week?
19:25:50 <wumpus> #endmeeting