16:00:14 <achow101> #startmeeting 
16:00:14 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-08-28T16:00+0000
16:00:15 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
16:00:16 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:17 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:18 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:24 <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
16:00:30 <cfields> hi
16:00:35 <dzxzg> hi
16:00:35 <sliv3r__> hi
16:00:39 <jonatack> hi
16:00:43 <johnny9dev> hi
16:00:44 <l0rinc> hi
16:01:05 <eugenesiegel> hi
16:01:07 <stickies-v> hi
16:01:16 <achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:01:23 <Murch[m]> Good morning
16:01:38 <kanzure> hi
16:01:42 <kevkevin> hi
16:02:16 <achow101> #topic Stratum v2 WG Update (sjors)
16:02:23 <achow101> <Sjors[m]1> Quick sv2 workgroup update since I'll be afk during some of the meeting. I just launched a standalone sv2 template provider that connects over IPC: https://github.com/Sjors/sv2-tp
16:02:23 <achow101> <Sjors[m]1> Thanks everyone for getting #31802 over the finish line.
16:02:25 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31802 | Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC by Sjors · Pull Request #31802 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:02:34 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101)
16:02:57 <instagibbs> hi
16:03:06 <achow101> No updates since last week, #29675 is the pr to review
16:03:10 <_aj_> hi
16:03:13 <corebot> achow101: Error: That URL raised <Connection timed out.>
16:03:38 <achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
16:03:46 <kevkevin> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675
16:03:50 <johnny9dev> was out last week (summer time). But getting back this week and focused on testing. I opened a PR to add a basic unittest (bitcoin-core/gui-qml#497). Going to use Qt's unittest framework and likely add GMock later on for more complex test scenarios. Will try to cover all c++ modules and use the QML test framework to do basic testing on the qml views as well.
16:03:51 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/497 | Add first unittest by johnny9 · Pull Request #497 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:04:04 <johnny9dev> that's all from me.
16:04:19 <achow101> #topic Benchmarking WG Update (josie, l0rinc)
16:04:53 <l0rinc> I have been measuring IBD on raspberry pis as well, was surprised to see that it took 2 minutes to connect a block
16:05:30 <l0rinc> was talking to localhost about having a few raspberry pi 5 servers to be able to measure these things continuously
16:05:58 <l0rinc> that's it from me
16:06:34 <achow101> #topic 30.0 feature freeze
16:06:49 <Murch[m]> l0rinc: Is there some data anywhere where we could see how time for IBD is progressing over time?
16:07:09 <achow101> we're still in feature freeze for 30.0, and the milestone has several bugfix prs on it that need review
16:07:11 <achow101> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/72
16:07:30 <achow101> anything that should be added or removed from the milestone?
16:08:05 <l0rinc> murch: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32043 shows how each PR affected the IBD time individually if that's what you're asking
16:08:30 <Murch[m]> No, that’s not what I meant, but I’ll follow up later.
16:08:35 <stickies-v> I think #33208 can be removed from the milestone, it's not completely fixed but the most common case should be, seems fine to me to not have this be a blocker
16:08:36 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33208 | Indexes stuck on unknown best block after unclean shutdown · Issue #33208 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:09:11 <l0rinc> achow101: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33224 has 9 acks, how can we help to move it further?
16:09:11 <achow101> stickies-v: removed
16:09:24 <achow101> #33224 
16:09:26 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33224 | doc: unify `datacarriersize` warning with release notes by l0rinc · Pull Request #33224 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:09:31 <achow101> the blocker on that is the translation string
16:10:20 <sipa> hi. not here. no clustermempool updates
16:10:22 <achow101> since updating transifex will mess up translations that have already been done
16:11:02 <l0rinc> is there a way to update the English one without messing up anything else? The translations can stay the same as far as I'm concerned
16:11:42 <achow101> if the string is updated in the source code, but we don't update transifex, it will be english for all languages
16:11:59 <achow101> even if there is a translation for the old string
16:12:00 <_aj_> could update the source test for the translations when the translations are merged?
16:12:07 <_aj_> source text
16:13:29 <achow101> _aj_: we don't update transifex after translation strings freeze
16:13:32 <achow101> not even for minor releaes
16:13:43 <achow101> but we do pull down new translations for minor releases
16:14:49 <l0rinc> sounds like transifex is holding us prisoners here
16:15:12 <l0rinc> or hostages or whatever the term is :)
16:15:16 <_aj_> achow101: we get the translation data out of transifex and merge it in though eg #32004. do that, then bulk search and replace the current english text with the change
16:15:22 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32004 | qt: 29.0 translations update by hebasto · Pull Request #32004 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:15:46 <achow101> _aj_: that's prone to breakage on the next translations update
16:16:19 <achow101> l0rinc: it's more of our own policy to not screw the translators
16:16:38 <l0rinc> how could it break exactly, isn't the source code being used as the source of truth?
16:16:58 <l0rinc> could other translation be messed up or just that they would have to retranslate this one in the worst case?
16:17:31 <achow101> l0rinc: the translation files also contain the untranslated string so that they can be matched against the source. what _aj_ is proposing is to modify the untranslated string contained in the translation file
16:18:05 <l0rinc> yes, it's what I proposed as well
16:18:49 <l0rinc> if we change all the keys, wouldn't that solve the problem deterministically?
16:19:07 <achow101> updating the source file in transifex will result in collateral damage in that _other_ strings will be marked as untranslated, requiring translators to re-enter and/or re-review those translations. while transifex has "memory", it doesn't fill things in automatically
16:19:31 <_aj_> so let's not do that until 31.0?
16:19:48 <achow101> this particular string would appear as a completely new string with no memory, and so has to be translated from scratch
16:20:52 <achow101> changing the translation files manually will require them to be changed manually for all strings update, otherwise the change gets reverted
16:21:21 <achow101> we do pull down translations for minor releases, and it's done by a script
16:22:10 <l0rinc> I'm not sure I fully understand why this is an unsolvable problem, seems like a very minor inconvenience only - and I don't mind helping where I can
16:23:38 <achow101> it's an inconvenience to all translators, and an inconvenience to the maintainers for the next 2 years. I don't think that's "very minor"
16:23:47 <achow101> *either an
16:23:55 <_aj_> seems like it would be pretty easy to change update-translations to do it automatically
16:25:33 <l0rinc> we will have the same problem again regardless of this particular issue
16:26:25 <stickies-v> nothing against the change but i'm not sure it's worth spending this much time on tbh
16:27:22 <achow101> stickies-v: right, is changing the string worth this much energy?
16:27:50 <achow101> l0rinc: why do you think we would have the same problem again?
16:28:14 <l0rinc> refactoring and updating strings is happening daily
16:28:36 <achow101> but not in the release branches, and generally not after translation strings freeze
16:28:52 <achow101> once we branch off, we can strings as we want
16:29:03 <achow101> this has been the process for at least a decade
16:29:39 <l0rinc> ok, seems I'm still missing some details, I'll accept of course and try to understand it better
16:29:57 <stickies-v> for #33189, maybe request review from some of the reviewers of the original PR? it was on my list for a while, but it's going to take me a lot more time than the many people familiar with the original pr
16:29:59 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33189 | rpc: followups for 33106 by glozow · Pull Request #33189 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:30:12 <l0rinc> #33106 
16:30:14 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33106 | policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee by glozow · Pull Request #33106 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:32:50 <achow101> stickies-v: requested a couple reviewers
16:32:57 <achow101> Any other topics to discuss today?
16:34:13 <eugenesiegel> Just one question, how much prior knowledge is required to review #32159
16:34:15 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32159 | net, pcp: handle multi-part responses and filter for default route while querying default gateway by willcl-ark · Pull Request #32159 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:34:43 <achow101> eugenesiegel: I don't think a whole lot is needed
16:34:44 <eugenesiegel> I am pretty ignorant of how pcp works
16:35:09 <achow101> you don't need any knowledge of pcp or natpmp. just need to figure out the details from the netlink and rtnetlink manpages
16:35:09 <eugenesiegel> achow101: ok great, I will review it
16:37:07 <achow101> #endmeeting