19:00:28 <achow101> #startmeeting 19:00:28 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 12 19:00:28 2023 UTC. The chair is achow101. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings. 19:00:28 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 19:00:45 <michaelfolkson> hi 19:00:51 <achow101> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 aj amiti ariard b10c 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 larryruane lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd 19:00:51 <achow101> phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild 19:01:03 <jamesob> hi 19:01:16 <hebasto> hi 19:01:19 <vasild> hi 19:01:29 <achow101> There are 3 preproposed meeting topics 19:01:34 <brunoerg> hi 19:01:47 <achow101> but let's start with the usual 19:01:53 <achow101> #topic High priority for review 19:01:53 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review 19:01:55 <furszy> hi 19:01:59 <kanzure> hi 19:02:01 <lightlike> hi 19:02:09 <achow101> https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1 anything to add/remove/merge? 19:03:55 <MacroFake> hi 19:04:15 <MacroFake> I'd like to have #26039 19:04:17 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26039 | refactor: Run type check against RPCArgs (1/2) by MarcoFalke ÷ Pull Request #26039 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:04:47 <achow101> MacroFake: done 19:04:52 <MacroFake> thanks 19:05:18 <sipa> I'd like #26691 19:05:20 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26691 | Update secp256k1 subtree to libsecp256k1 version 0.2.0 by sipa ÷ Pull Request #26691 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:05:54 <achow101> sipa: added 19:07:13 <achow101> #topic #25871 (bytes1440000) 19:07:13 <core-meetingbot> topic: #25871 (bytes1440000) 19:07:15 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25871 | contrib: add vasild to trusted keys by vasild ÷ Pull Request #25871 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:07:16 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25871 | contrib: add vasild to trusted keys by vasild ÷ Pull Request #25871 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:08:27 <michaelfolkson> I'm happy to pick this one up if bytes1440000 isn't here 19:08:36 <michaelfolkson> Basically the same one as mine 19:09:23 <michaelfolkson> So the PR to add vasild as a maintainer has now been open 5 months https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871 19:09:40 <achow101> I think it's clear that there is disagreement that vasild should be added as a maintainer, and so by that basis alone, should not be due to lack of consensus 19:09:55 <michaelfolkson> What is the reasoning? 19:10:19 <michaelfolkson> And why can't fanquake and/or glozow comment on the PR? 19:10:27 <achow101> however, this is basically new territory for us, as far as I can remember, all previous maintainers were added without any disagreement at all 19:10:56 <michaelfolkson> I'm assuming given the secrecy vasild supposedly has some dark secrets that we can't discuss 19:11:11 <michaelfolkson> Or that fanquake and glozow don't value discussing anything in public 19:11:37 <michaelfolkson> The silence is absurd 19:12:21 <michaelfolkson> What are next steps? Just let fanquake and glozow block whatever they want without disclosing why? 19:12:52 <sipa> Previous maintainers were also all selected because existing maintainers saw a need, and nominated somewhere. It's unclear to me where this is coming from here. 19:13:02 <sipa> *someone 19:13:13 <achow101> from what I can tell, I believe the concern is the lack of addressing the specific concerns brought up in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871#issuecomment-1257032315 19:13:52 <michaelfolkson> I get you're neutral sipa but the other maintainers have ACKed it, many long term contributors have ACKed it. fanquake and glozow have to have a reason 19:14:08 <achow101> I think the removal of the net_processing scope was part of that, it doesn't address the concerns regarding review participation (or lack thereof) 19:14:13 <michaelfolkson> This can't be how the project is managed going forward 19:14:23 <michaelfolkson> It isn't fair on vasild 19:15:04 <michaelfolkson> Concerns were raised with glozow when she became maintainer and that was merged within days 19:15:26 <michaelfolkson> Ok so some suggestions for next steps? 19:15:37 <achow101> iirc they were addressed, sufficiently that those who raised them ack'd 19:15:44 <michaelfolkson> Close the PR? Wait for fanquake and glozow to decide the next maintainer? 19:15:59 <michaelfolkson> And provide no rationale for their choice? 19:16:01 <_aj_> next steps? stop trying to make vasild a maintainer when there's no particular need, work on making good PRs and reviewing them 19:16:35 <sipa> I'm mostly neutral on vasild being added. I'm not neutral on a maintainer being added in the first place - without having a discussion about why another one is needed, I don't understand why we're having this discussion in the first place. 19:17:10 <michaelfolkson> Ok so comment on the PR sipa and _aj_ that another maintainer isn't needed and NACK it 19:17:19 <vasild> some opinions on the PR state that the p2p/networking area is so big that it warrants two maintainers... 19:17:31 <MacroFake> michaelfolkson: sipa already said that on the pull 19:17:42 <michaelfolkson> MacroFake: He didn't NACK it 19:17:44 <instagibbs> mic check (sorry) 19:17:51 <achow101> instagibbs: working 19:18:04 <MacroFake> michaelfolkson: I think it is rude to request others to NACK a pull 19:18:22 <sipa> No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm not NACKing vasild, nor am I NACKing adding another maintainer. I'm saying I'd want to see a discussion about whether another one is needed. I haven 19:18:31 <sipa> 't seen that discussion. 19:18:32 <michaelfolkson> I think it is rude for a potential maintainer to be sitting there for 5 months not knowing what is going on 19:18:32 <lightlike> wasn't the original reason that laanwj (who was doing much of the merging in net) stopped being a maintainer? 19:18:57 <vasild> lightlike: yes, that was 19:19:01 <sipa> And as far as I'm concerned, it's existing maintainers who have to answer that question. 19:19:56 <michaelfolkson> I think it is rude for 2 maintainers to just ignore a PR for a new maintainer with so many ACKs 19:20:08 <michaelfolkson> And ignore requests for them to comment and appear at meetings 19:20:11 <_aj_> i've only found it hard to get review of changes in net; not merges once review's passed. 19:20:37 <_aj_> this entire topic seems much more like it's following https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html rather than trying to solve actual problems to me 19:21:26 <michaelfolkson> Well the sabotage of Vasil being maintainer, yeah maybe 19:21:50 <michaelfolkson> You saying fanquake and glozow are CIA _aj_? 19:21:55 <sipa> wtf 19:22:00 <MacroFake> (slightly off topic: let's not mix up the low level net scope and the higher level p2p net processing scope, while there is overlap, they are largely different modules) 19:22:20 <vasild> If existent maintainers think there is no need for a new one, maybe it would be good to state so. And maybe some maintainer to claim that area? Btw that would put the discussion whether my "skills" are tuned to p2p or just networking in a strange light. 19:22:30 <achow101> michaelfolkson: why is it so important tht vasild become maintainer to you? Is it about him specifically or about the process? 19:23:00 <achow101> I could just nack and close the pr if it makes you feel better ... 19:23:21 <michaelfolkson> achow101: Vasil is being treated awfully. I hated when Luke was treated badly during Taproot activation and hate this 19:23:53 <michaelfolkson> Some people think they can do whatever they want and don't need to tell anyone anything. On a supposedly open source project 19:24:35 <michaelfolkson> If everyone else is happy with it then I'm in the minority 19:25:03 <michaelfolkson> But I wouldn't blame Vasil for moving on to other things. The communication is a joke 19:25:20 <achow101> frankly, I think opinions aren't being shared because of potential backlash from aggressive users such as yourself and bytes1440000 19:25:33 <michaelfolkson> Ok move on to the next topic then 19:25:53 <_aj_> the only lowish level net PR on high pri or PR status projects is #25515 which is in draft. adding #26837 might be a more productive step? 19:25:56 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25515 | net, test: Virtualise CConnman and add initial PeerManager unit tests by dergoegge ÷ Pull Request #25515 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:25:58 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26837 | I2P network optimizations by vasild ÷ Pull Request #26837 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:26:33 <achow101> _aj_: done 19:26:39 <michaelfolkson> I will consider Bitcoin Core a project where fanquake and glozow can make whatever decisions they want without communicating why from now on. I didn't think it was that way but apparently it is 19:26:43 <vasild> would be nice if 26837 makes it to the next release 19:27:24 <dergoegge> #25515 can be removed from high-prio, gotta get around to updating it (it got quite a few concept acks, which is what i wanted) 19:27:27 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25515 | net, test: Virtualise CConnman and add initial PeerManager unit tests by dergoegge ÷ Pull Request #25515 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:27:57 <lightlike> or even have 26837 as a backport candidate? (if it actually helps the stabililty of the i2p network) 19:28:02 <achow101> dergoegge: done 19:29:20 <achow101> #topic #26868 (bytes1440000) 19:29:20 <core-meetingbot> topic: #26868 (bytes1440000) 19:29:21 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26868 | [WIP] doc: add MAINTAINERS.md by 1440000bytes ÷ Pull Request #26868 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:29:21 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26868 | [WIP] doc: add MAINTAINERS.md by 1440000bytes ÷ Pull Request #26868 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:30:25 <achow101> The pr this is pulled from was closed due to lack of intereset. I suspect the same will happen again 19:30:31 <MacroFake> Looks like people can leave a comment on the pull, unless there is a need to discuss something on IRC? 19:30:59 <achow101> I think he just wants to bring attention to it 19:31:20 <achow101> michaelfolkson: I presume your proposed topic was sufficiently discussed already? 19:31:30 <michaelfolkson> achow101: Indeed 19:31:57 <achow101> does anyone have anything else they would like to discuss? 19:32:11 <_aj_> unrelatedly, is there any way to do pushes so that github better detects that PR's were merged, so they get the purple colour instead of the red colour? eg #26856 or #26827? maybe push to the repo the PR was from first, and delay for a few minutes before also pushing to the other (gui/main) one? 19:32:12 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26856 | ci: Run one task with all tests on credits by MarcoFalke ÷ Pull Request #26856 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:32:13 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26827 | doc: use "std lib clock" over "C++11 clock" by fanquake ÷ Pull Request #26827 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:32:43 <MacroFake> _aj_: Maybe a "Closes #pull_number" would help? 19:33:02 <MacroFake> Or we could ditch GitHub (hides) 19:33:13 <achow101> _aj_: I haven't noticed any patterns in how it detects it, seems rather spurious to me 19:33:58 <MacroFake> I contacted support a few years ago and they told me "they are working on it" 19:34:21 <MacroFake> it's an intermittent issue 19:35:12 <instagibbs> request a force-purple button 19:35:38 <achow101> #endmeeting