16:00:12 <glozow> #startmeeting 
16:00:12 <corebot> glozow: Meeting started at 2025-02-06T16:00+0000
16:00:13 <corebot> glozow: Current chairs: glozow
16:00:14 <corebot> glozow: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:15 <corebot> glozow: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:16 <corebot> glozow: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:23 <cfields> hi
16:00:26 <furszy> hi
16:00:27 <dzxzg> hi
16:00:29 <sr_gi[m]> hi
16:00:30 <darosior> hi
16:00:33 <pinheadmz> yo
16:00:42 <hebasto> hi
16:00:45 <achow101> Hi (mostly afk, skip my wg updates)
16:00:46 <brunoerg> hi
16:00:58 <Murch[m]> hi
16:00:59 <glozow> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: abubakarsadiq achow101 _aj_ ajonas b10c brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto instagibbs jarolrod jonatack josibake kanzure laanwj LarryRuane lightlike luke-jr maflcko marcofleon maxedw Murch pinheadmz provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK stickies-v sipa sr_gi tdb3 theStack TheCharlatan vasild willcl-ark
16:01:01 <ajonas> Hi
16:01:17 <dergoegge> hi
16:01:30 <glozow> Any topics? I don't see any in https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt
16:01:37 <stickies-v> hi
16:01:41 <abubakarsadiq> hi
16:01:47 <ajonas> I proposed one
16:01:47 <cfields> one from ajonas above.
16:01:57 <sipa> hi
16:02:06 <glozow> I figured but can't see it for some reason
16:02:16 <cfields> <ajonas> #proposedmeetingtopic Bitcoin Core contributor survey
16:02:25 <glozow> thanks!
16:02:37 <glozow> #topic Erlay WG Update (sr_gi, gleb, marcofleon)
16:03:07 <theStack> hi
16:03:56 <gleb> I’m converging my new research results with sergi and I hope we proceed with more implementation work real soon :)
16:04:36 <sr_gi[m]> I don't have much to report this week, I continued working on some of the proposed improvements after last week's meeting, but no results so far, mostly brainstorming. I did start making the approach and experiments more easily accessible on delving, so people that are not following too closely have an easy access to them
16:04:36 <glozow> #topic Fuzzing WG Update (dergoegge)
16:05:05 <dergoegge> i'll have something to shill at coredev but no update today
16:05:36 <glozow> ok
16:06:31 <glozow> I don't see people for kernel, benchmarking, silent payments, SV2, musig, legacy wallet removal, or multiprocess
16:06:55 <glozow> I'll go next, please lmk if you want to give a WG update
16:07:04 <glozow> #topic orphan resolution WG Update (glozow)
16:07:12 <glozow> I've opened #31810 which does internal tracking for number of announcements and "memory usage" (weight). This has no behavior changes and should be reviewable by anybody. The second PR to actually add *limits* for these things is also coming soon.
16:07:14 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31810 | TxOrphanage: account for size of orphans and count announcements by glozow · Pull Request #31810 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:07:27 <sipa> exciting
16:07:50 <sr_gi[m]> 🎉
16:07:57 <glozow> yes! extra emphasis on "this should be really straightforward to review"
16:08:18 <glozow> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
16:08:42 <sipa> hello
16:09:32 <sipa> not much observable review on txgraph (so far?), but i've been getting comments from sdaftuar based on rebasing the full cluster mempool code on top, and making changes/additions to help with those
16:10:00 <sipa> also we had a nice review club by glozow about it yesterday, the discussion may be interesting for anyone wishing to review
16:10:12 <sipa> otherwise nothing big happening on my side, just addressing feedback
16:10:24 <glozow> logs from yesterday's meeting: https://bitcoincore.reviews/31363
16:10:49 <furszy> re legacy wallet removal update: the focus is still on #31495, which has received some review.
16:10:53 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31495 | wallet: Utilize IsMine() and CanProvide() in migration to cover edge cases by achow101 · Pull Request #31495 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:10:56 <sipa> oh, and cluster linearization was apparently solved in a paper from 1978, and subsequently improved
16:11:51 <glozow> sipa: no biggie
16:12:53 <dergoegge> link to the paper?
16:13:02 <cfields> haha
16:13:09 <glozow> furszy: thanks
16:13:19 <glozow> last call for WG updates?
16:13:23 <darosior> Discussion here https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/how-to-linearize-your-cluster/303/9
16:13:24 <sipa> dergoegge: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/how-to-linearize-your-cluster/303/12
16:13:29 <dergoegge> thanks
16:13:32 <sipa> (and posts before and after it)
16:13:55 <glozow> #topic Bitcoin Core contributor survey (ajonas)
16:14:10 <ajonas> I've compiled the results of the contributor survey. A good turnout this year so thanks to those that responded to my pestering. It's here: https://adamjonas.com/bitcoin/coredev/retro/coredev-2024-retro
16:14:19 <ajonas> that's all
16:14:31 <glozow> ajonas: thanks!
16:14:59 <kevkevin> hi
16:15:00 <sipa> ajonas: sorry :(
16:15:33 <glozow> #topic v29.0 release priorities
16:15:49 <glozow> Reminder that we have feature freeze in 2 weeks
16:16:01 <glozow> There are 31 items on the milestone: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/69
16:16:19 <stickies-v> ajonas: "and 228 first-time reviewers" -> does that exclude the spam no-comment (or deleted) ACKs?
16:16:32 <stickies-v> thank you for compiling this, again!
16:16:53 <stickies-v> (ACKs or GitHub approves etc)
16:16:56 <glozow> Does anybody have anything to add or remove from the milestone?
16:17:46 <ajonas> stickies-v: I actually don't know. My guess is they are included but it would depend on what goes into the b10c source
16:18:54 <stickies-v> it seems like a surprisingly high number when accounting for spam
16:19:06 <Murch[m]> b10c: Can you clarify?
16:19:29 <glozow> My guess would be that deleted comments don't get pulled into the data
16:19:47 <glozow> It seems weird that github would serve that info
16:20:59 <sipa> i believe it doesn't
16:21:03 <fanquake> A new first-time reviewer showing up every 2/3 days for the entire year does seem high
16:21:18 <furszy> there are bots that "approve" changes without leaving any comment too. And AFAIK, those aren't removed?
16:21:27 <sipa> furszy: they're unremovable :(
16:21:36 <lightlike> some comments can't be deleted are just marked as hidden then.
16:21:42 <furszy> :/
16:22:28 <glozow> script is open source if anybody wants to spend their time looking at this instead of reviewing 29.0 PRs https://github.com/bitschmidty/bitcoin-core-contributor-stats
16:22:42 <achow101> We might want to consider turning on the limit on new github users
16:22:52 <ajonas> I modified it a bit and will need to push back my changes
16:23:02 <ajonas> *a lot
16:24:17 <glozow> ajonas: you are using the british "a bit"
16:24:46 <glozow> ok well, everybody, start thinking about who's going to review your PRs for v29 and which ones you'll review. that's all
16:24:53 <glozow> anything else to discuss?
16:25:19 <stickies-v> interesting how the mean personal satisfaction < mean project satisfaction. i don't think that would track with many psychology experiments
16:26:04 <glozow> stickies-v: I imagine it could be modesty
16:26:12 <glozow> I don't think I'd ever give myself a 5
16:26:15 <sipa> or selection bias
16:26:22 <glozow> #endmeeting