16:00:48 <achow101> #startmeeting 
16:00:48 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-08-21T16:00+0000
16:00:49 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
16:00:50 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:51 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:52 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:56 <achow101> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: abubakarsadiq achow101 _aj_ ajonas b10c brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto hodlinator 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
16:00:56 <dzxzg> hi
16:00:57 <TheCharlatan> hi
16:00:59 <janb84> hi
16:01:00 <eugenesiegel64> hi
16:01:24 <achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:03:17 <achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
16:03:31 <brunoerg> hi
16:04:04 <kanzure> hi
16:04:17 <kevkevin> hi
16:04:21 <purpleKarrot> hi
16:04:25 <TheCharlatan> nothing to share with the wider group this week, a lot of discussions and work happening though.
16:04:57 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101)
16:05:04 <achow101> Also no updates this week
16:05:27 <achow101> #topic 30.0 feature freeze
16:05:38 <achow101> Yesterday was feature freeze
16:06:22 <achow101> There are still a number of PRs in the milestone, mostly bug fixes. please review these
16:06:24 <achow101> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/72
16:07:13 <jon_atack> hi
16:07:17 <l0rinc> hi
16:07:23 <achow101> Anything to add or drop from the milestone?
16:07:35 <achow101> I think we should drop #32579
16:07:39 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32579 | headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior by hodlinator · Pull Request #32579 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:08:01 <lightlike> Hi
16:08:31 <l0rinc> Could we add #33224 to V30?
16:08:32 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33224 | doc: unify `datacarriersize` warning with release notes by l0rinc · Pull Request #33224 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:09:01 <janb84> 2nd that
16:09:02 <jon_atack> achow101: propose a smaller scoped version of #32051 (IBD only) to fix syncing on slow connections
16:09:05 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32051 | p2p: protect addnode peers during IBD by jonatack · Pull Request #32051 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:10:09 <achow101> l0rinc: done
16:10:12 <fanquake> l0rinc: unclear that needs rewording
16:10:13 <jon_atack> l0rinc: agree -- i am unsure what current policy is, but it used to be that doc-only changes were mergeable after FF
16:10:40 <fanquake> there is no ambiguiity around us dropping that option, as far as I'm aware?
16:10:55 <fanquake> jon_atack: unclear what your proposing, looks like that PR hasn't been updated since last week?
16:11:00 <achow101> jon_atack: doesn't seem like a regression? and I'm not sure a fix can be properly reviewed in a week
16:11:39 <fanquake> seems like there's still high level outstanding questions that are unaddressed, like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32051#issuecomment-2932718871
16:11:51 <l0rinc> fanquake: we don't know the future, no need to state it that aggressively - we should discuss dropping it separately, especially since the release notes already does that
16:13:06 <dergoegge> what's the point of keeping those options around?
16:13:22 <achow101> to reduce drama lol
16:13:26 <jon_atack> fanquake: it is a longstanding bug (perhaps first reported in 2014 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/5097), for me it made a very large difference in IBD time, though if others disagree I suppose it can wait for another release
16:13:27 <l0rinc> yes
16:13:42 <l0rinc> and to unify the wording with the release notes
16:13:43 <dergoegge> yea lol
16:13:59 <achow101> jon_atack: long standing bugs generally don't meet the bar for merging after feature freeze
16:14:25 <fanquake> jonatack: probably good to add a test/reproducer then?
16:14:38 <dergoegge> I don't think we should keep code around to "reduce drama" but I also don't care that much
16:15:41 <janb84> at the time, the code is still there and the project has some history to un-deprecate options. so why the premature harshness
16:15:57 <l0rinc> exactly - we're not proposing to keep it, just to discuss the removal separately
16:16:19 <dergoegge> just seems more honest to say it will be removed if that's the plan (i thought it was)
16:16:30 <achow101> hmm, we're past translation strings freeze too, so changing this will result in yet another translations update
16:16:34 <l0rinc> no, it's more honest to say that "the plan is to remove"
16:17:02 <fanquake> Yea. strings have already been updated and frozen
16:17:05 <l0rinc> I can update the translations as well in the PR if needed
16:17:18 <achow101> there isn't really a semantics change, so I don't think it should be in the milestone
16:19:00 <jon_atack> regarding the outstanding question raised in 32051, dropping the middle two commits for now to only give addnode peers more time would resolve it
16:19:29 <jon_atack> I'll look into doing that
16:19:37 <dzxzg> I think the string is fine as-is, the ambiguity is embedded in the fact that it's the PoV of the project at time of release, and obviously that perspective can change in the future, I don't think much is gained by explicitly laying out that the future is hard to predict.
16:20:25 <achow101> Anything else to discuss?
16:21:21 <stickies-v> i don't have a strong opinion on the string change, either is fine by me, but it doesn't seem worth doing another translations update to me
16:22:08 <l0rinc> I don't mind doing the extra work, but I think the reword could avoid extra drama (this line was pointed out on Twitter explicitly)
16:22:16 <achow101> Should #32592 need to be in the milestone? It's needed rebase for 2 months
16:22:18 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32592 | threading: remove ancient CRITICAL_SECTION macros by theuni · Pull Request #32592 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:22:19 <fanquake> I don't see why we'd change it under the premise of having the discussion again, and maybe not dropping it, when that has already been decided, adn rejected in #32714
16:22:21 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32714 | init, doc: Replace datacarrier(size) deprecation with non-recommendation text by achow101 · Pull Request #32714 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:23:20 <TheCharlatan> I'd want #32592, would be nice to not have to backport to the old macros.
16:23:21 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32592 | threading: remove ancient CRITICAL_SECTION macros by theuni · Pull Request #32592 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:23:46 <fanquake> Yea, Cory should be following up with it shortly
16:24:40 <l0rinc> fanquake: if nothing else, it's inconsistent with the release notes.
16:25:13 <l0rinc> and we *will* have the discussion again, this time we shouldn't be surprised again
16:25:33 <achow101> what the text says won't change that
16:25:40 <dzxzg> Bikeshedding over the wording in the rpc helptext only gives more airtime to whatever drama we are supposedly avoiding
16:26:41 <dzxzg> And creates more senseless conflict and wasted contributor time, which is exactly what we want to avoid.
16:28:23 <l0rinc> I don't think unifying the two messages creates senseless conflict
16:29:22 <achow101> Any other topics?
16:31:30 <hodlinator> Why drop #32579?
16:31:33 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32579 | headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior by hodlinator · Pull Request #32579 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:32:07 <hodlinator> Oh, saw the comment now.
16:32:17 <achow101> hodlinator: I left a comment
16:33:10 <hodlinator> Okay, let's get it in after branching off then.
16:33:15 <achow101> #endmeeting