19:00:22 <laanwj> #startmeeting 19:00:22 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Jul 8 19:00:22 2021 UTC. The chair is laanwj. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings. 19:00:22 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 19:00:30 <hebasto> hi 19:00:34 <laanwj> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 _aj_ amiti ariard BlueMatt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 darosior digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb glozow gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jarolrod jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral laanwj lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos 19:00:35 <emzy> hi 19:00:36 <laanwj> nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild 19:00:37 <achow101> hi 19:00:44 <fjahr> hi 19:00:54 <jamesob> hi 19:01:01 <laanwj> one pre-proposed topic: should we keep both guix and gitian for 22.0 release (hebasto) 19:01:02 <ariard> hi 19:01:04 <meshcollider> hi 19:01:31 <laanwj> any last minute topics? 19:01:54 <kvaciral[m]> hi 19:02:18 <sipsorcery> hi 19:02:18 <laanwj> #topic 22.0 release 19:02:19 <core-meetingbot> topic: 22.0 release 19:02:29 <neha> hi 19:02:30 <laanwj> I think we're getting pretty close to the point where we can branch off 22.0 19:02:35 <laanwj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/47 19:02:37 <michaelfolkson> hi 19:02:57 <hebasto> #20234 seems rtm 19:02:59 <laanwj> most of the remaining tagged PRs are almost ready for merge 19:02:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20234 | net: dont bind on 0.0.0.0 if binds are restricted to Tor by vasild ÷ Pull Request #20234 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:03:10 <laanwj> some can use a little more review 19:03:23 <luke-jr> #22412 should be added to 22.0 blockers 19:03:25 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22412 | Bugfix: Workaround UniValue push_back(bool) limitation with push_back(UniValue(bool)) by luke-jr ÷ Pull Request #22412 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:03:57 <laanwj> that one's too controversial to add last minute to a release 19:04:01 <jonatack> hi 19:04:16 <luke-jr> laanwj: so what? 22.0 will just be broken? 19:04:33 <laanwj> opinions differ on that 19:04:34 <jonatack> i plan to test #22112 a bit further, and maybe update the hardcoded i2p seeds 19:04:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22112 | Force port 0 in I2P by vasild ÷ Pull Request #22112 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:04:50 <luke-jr> laanwj: fixing it has zero downside 19:05:01 <laanwj> jonatack: good point on the hardcoded seeds,they should use port 0 too? 19:05:32 <jonatack> that's done in the PR. but some seem less active and new ones have arrived since 19:05:39 <sipa> luke-jr: in what way is current master broken? 19:05:41 <laanwj> oh, right 19:05:51 <sipa> it's not clear to me if this is a code smell issue, or incorrect RPC output 19:06:10 <jonatack> (will re-verify, i know of 16 I2P ones now) 19:06:12 <luke-jr> sipa: incorrect RPC output, and test failure 19:06:28 <luke-jr> (incorrect output is only supposed to be used by tests) 19:06:49 <laanwj> I think dropping support for system unicode would make sense, the upstream is hardly updated and/or diverged too much to kep supporting it 19:07:05 <jamesob> *univalue :) 19:07:05 <sipa> oh this is only if you're using system univalue? 19:07:08 <laanwj> we subtree it anyway so I don't really see the point of the current construction 19:07:12 <laanwj> univalue yes 19:07:22 <luke-jr> laanwj: it makes no sense. we should not diverge at all 19:07:45 <luke-jr> the subtree should be dropped, ideally, but supporting using the system install is a bare minimum comptence 19:07:46 <laanwj> luke-jr: there is not much choice given how intermittently upstream is maintained 19:07:58 <luke-jr> laanwj: it's maintained when there's things to maintain 19:08:43 <sipa> 14 open pull requests, and no commits since 2019? 19:09:02 <laanwj> sipa: right 19:09:35 <luke-jr> sipa: it works. the only reason there's a problem is that Marco is intentionally diverging the subtree 19:09:36 <laanwj> #topic should we keep both guix and gitian for 22.0 release (hebasto) 19:09:36 <core-meetingbot> topic: should we keep both guix and gitian for 22.0 release (hebasto) 19:09:44 <hebasto> hi 19:09:50 <hebasto> it is expected that 22.0 release binaries will be built with guix 19:09:59 <hebasto> otoh, currently, gitian builds for linux do not pass glibc symbol check 19:10:03 <laanwj> I think we should delete the gitian stuff after doing a succesful gitian release 19:10:08 <laanwj> a succesful guix release 19:10:12 <laanwj> not before that 19:10:29 <hebasto> that means after rc1 or rc2? 19:10:32 <laanwj> it doesn't work 100% at the moment but it's easier to fix up in case there are unforseen problems with guix than bringing everything back 19:10:42 <laanwj> no, after final 19:11:42 <hebasto> in that case 22.0 release source code will contain broken gitian stuff 19:11:49 <laanwj> yes 19:12:09 <hebasto> if that is ok, let it be 19:12:27 <laanwj> I don't see a big problem with that 19:12:47 <hebasto> should we mention it in release notes? 19:12:58 <sipa> it doesn't affect the release 19:12:58 <laanwj> no, it's of no interest to end users 19:13:16 <luke-jr> it changes how end users verify binaries 19:13:24 <sipa> yes, that should be mentioned 19:13:37 <laanwj> that would make sense to mention then 19:15:15 <laanwj> any other topics? 19:15:56 <laanwj> #endmeeting