14:00:13 <achow101> #startmeeting 14:00:19 <TheCharlatan> hi 14:00:20 <achow101> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 _aj_ amiti ariard aureleoules b10c BlueMatt brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge dongcarl fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto instagibbs jamesob jarolrod jonatack josibake kallewoof kanzure kouloumos kvaciral laanwj LarryRuane lightlike luke-jr MacroFake Murch phantomcircuit pinheadmz promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK stickies-v sipa sr-gi[m] theStack TheCharlatan vasild 14:00:22 <josie> hiya 14:00:23 <cfields> hi 14:00:25 <hebasto> hi 14:00:26 <brunoerg> hi 14:00:27 <pinheadmz> yoyoyo 14:00:28 <instagibbs> hi 14:00:29 <furszy> hi 14:00:30 <tdb3> hi 14:00:31 <sipa> hi 14:00:32 <willcl-ark> hi 14:00:34 <sdaftuar> hi 14:00:35 <_aj_> hi 14:00:36 <achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add? 14:00:38 <Sjors[m]> Hi 14:00:44 <lightlike> Hi 14:01:08 <sr_gi[m]> Hi 14:01:10 <Murch[m]> hi 14:01:13 <glozow> hi 14:01:18 <achow101> #topic package relay updates (glozow) 14:01:24 <abubakarsadiq> hi 14:01:44 <glozow> I've been on holiday so will update #30000 in a bit. Currently reviewing #28984 which is the priority PR rn. 14:01:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28984 | Cluster size 2 package rbf by instagibbs ÷ Pull Request #28984 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:01:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30000 | p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid by glozow ÷ Pull Request #30000 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:02:25 <glozow> That's all, not much to report this week 14:02:25 <dergoegge> hi 14:02:28 <stickies-v> hi 14:02:30 <achow101> #topic cluster mempool updates (sdaftuar) 14:03:11 <sdaftuar> not much of an update from me this week either. i did push a rebase up to the draft PR, and i'm working on some slightly esoteric things right now. still planning to udpate the branch with better benchmarks and tests in the near future. 14:03:36 <sipa> i'm getting close to having some PR'able low-level cluster linearization code. 14:04:14 <sdaftuar> i think as glozow said, #28984 is probably the best thing to be reviewing/working on as a next PR 14:04:16 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28984 | Cluster size 2 package rbf by instagibbs ÷ Pull Request #28984 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:04:31 <josie> sipa: too bad close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades *ducks* 14:04:42 <sdaftuar> josie: be careful what you wish for! 14:04:59 <kanzure> hi 14:05:04 <instagibbs> please reach out if you have any questions or want a walktrhough on how tx processing works today(non-trivial!) 14:05:58 <achow101> #topic legacy wallet removal updates (achow101) 14:06:10 <glozow> *hurriedly generates epic handshake meme 14:06:27 <abubakarsadiq> #30072 was opened recently, can review happen asynchronously for #28984 and #30072 or there is dependency? 14:06:28 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30072 | refactor prep for package rbf by instagibbs ÷ Pull Request #30072 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:06:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28984 | Cluster size 2 package rbf by instagibbs ÷ Pull Request #28984 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:06:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30072 | refactor prep for package rbf by instagibbs ÷ Pull Request #30072 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:06:40 <achow101> #26606 is still the pr to review, and it looks like a few people are still looking at it 14:06:42 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26606 | wallet: Implement independent BDB parser by achow101 ÷ Pull Request #26606 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:06:57 <instagibbs> glozow suggested it, people can yell at me to close if they don't think it's necessary, whatever aids review 14:07:20 <josie> achow101: started with it, was curious if there were any bdb wallets from when you and murch were doing wallet simulations? 14:07:37 <josie> or more generally, if anyone here has old bdb wallets that can be used for testing that PR 14:07:42 <achow101> josie: I might've deleted them 14:07:42 <glozow> I think there would be a conflict. I just figured it might make the PR smaller 14:08:37 <achow101> josie: since it uses the test framework, they all get cleaned up at the end of the script 14:09:17 <achow101> but yes, if anyone has old bdb wallets, testing them on 26606 would be useful 14:09:40 <josie> yeah was more just curious to try it on a variety of wallets in the wild. i remembered the simulation wallets actually had some interesting txs and behavior, which is what made me think of them 14:09:41 <Murch[m]> josie: Sorry, also donâÂÂt have any 14:10:16 <cfields> achow101: current test failure relevant? It's wallet-related. 14:10:35 <sipa> josie: i think expected issues would be more due to being created with old versions, having gone through many (but maybe not all) version upgrades, ...; not so much the content (in terms of addresses/transactions) of the wallet 14:10:52 <sipa> maybe very large wallets might trigger edge cases 14:10:57 <achow101> cfields: i probably have to rebase. that ci task is the one that tells us about silent merge conflicts 14:11:13 <fanquake> cfields: a number of wallet tests just fail semi-regularly, looks like one of those 14:12:05 <furszy> IIRC, there is a PR seeking to fix that 14:12:13 <furszy> 29982 14:12:16 <sipa> #29982 14:12:18 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29982 | test: Fix intermittent issue in wallet_backwards_compatibility.py by Randy808 ÷ Pull Request #29982 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:12:25 <josie> sipa: yeah, iirc we were simulating with very large wallets and some of them had been around forever, which is why i was hoping for old versions/upgrades etc. agree that the tx content itself isnt that important for the bdb parser 14:12:39 <sipa> josie: oh, i see 14:13:30 <cfields> roger, thanks. 14:13:55 <achow101> #topic Ad-hoc high priority for review 14:14:01 <achow101> Anything to add or remove from https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1/views/4 14:14:46 <achow101> or any other topics to discuss this week? 14:14:48 <fanquake> I'll add #29739. Would like to get that done soon, so we can finish with #21778 14:14:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29739 | build: swap cctools otool for llvm-objdump by fanquake ÷ Pull Request #29739 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:14:51 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21778 | build: LLD based macOS toolchain by fanquake ÷ Pull Request #21778 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:15:16 <achow101> fanquake: added 14:15:43 <fanquake> re other topics, the current round of backports for 27.x are reviewable/mergable. Would like to get that in shortly too 14:16:12 <achow101> #29888 14:16:13 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29888 | [27.x] Backports by fanquake ÷ Pull Request #29888 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:17:18 <achow101> #endmeeting