16:00:01 <fjahr> #startmeeting 
16:00:01 <corebot> fjahr: Meeting started at 2026-03-12T16:00+0000
16:00:02 <corebot> fjahr: Current chairs: fjahr
16:00:03 <corebot> fjahr: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:04 <corebot> fjahr: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:05 <corebot> fjahr: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:18 <janb84> hi
16:00:19 <fjahr> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: abubakarsadiq achow101 _aj_ ajonas b10c brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge dzxzg eugenesiegel fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto hodlinator instagibbs janb84 jarolrod jonatack josibake kanzure kevkevin laanwj LarryRuane lightlike l0rinc luke-jr maflcko marcofleon maxedw Murch pinheadmz provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK stickies-v sipa sliv3r__ sr_gi tdb3 theStack TheCharlatan vasild
16:00:19 <fjahr> willcl-ark
16:00:20 <achow101> hi
16:00:20 <johnny9dev> hi
16:00:25 <sr_gi> hi
16:00:33 <hebasto> hi
16:00:38 <dergoegge> hi
16:00:39 <sipa> bikehi
16:00:40 <_aj_> hi
16:00:41 <sipa> hi
16:00:44 <fjahr> There is one pre-proposed meeting topic this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:00:53 <brunoerg> hi
16:01:06 <l0rinc> hi
16:01:17 <theStack> hi
16:01:18 <kanzure> hi
16:01:28 <furszy> hi
16:01:31 <andrewtoth_> hi
16:01:38 <pinheadmz> yo
16:01:46 <nymius> hi
16:01:51 <fjahr> Ok, starting with the WGs!
16:01:53 <fjahr> #topic Fuzzing WG Update (dergoegge)
16:01:53 <hodlinator> hi
16:01:58 <eugenesiegel> hi
16:02:25 <dergoegge> nothing from my side
16:02:55 <fjahr> #topic Benchmarking WG Update (l0rinc, andrewtoth)
16:03:12 <l0rinc> nothing urgent from my side
16:03:29 <andrewtoth_> #34576 was merged. #31132 has been rebased with all split out PRs completed. Thanks everyone for your reviews and benchmarks!
16:03:33 <corebot> andrewtoth_: Error: That URL appears to have no HTML title within the first 32KB.
16:03:35 <corebot> andrewtoth_: Error: That URL appears to have no HTML title within the first 32KB.
16:03:42 <dzxzg2> hi
16:03:56 <andrewtoth_> I'm considering reopening #31132 as a fresh PR since there are over 500 comments and many are no longer relevant.
16:03:57 <corebot> andrewtoth_: Error: That URL appears to have no HTML title within the first 32KB.
16:04:07 <andrewtoth_> That's it from me.
16:04:29 <andrewtoth_> What's wrong with corebot?
16:04:37 <_aj_> github rate limits probably?
16:04:44 <achow101> It's not having a good day I guess
16:05:11 <_aj_> (at least i'm constantly getting rate limits when not logged in, for no apparent reason)
16:05:17 <fjahr> depressed from all the ai slop
16:05:20 <fjahr> johnny9dev: you wanted yours reactivated, right? Please edit the WGs wiki page, thanks!
16:05:27 <fjahr> #topic QML GUI WG Update (johnny9dev)
16:05:31 <johnny9dev> yes
16:05:36 <johnny9dev> For gui-qml I have been focused on cleaning up any dependency to the qt source code. I’ve also been working on the test coverage and automation frameworks. I am just about done with both and will be closing out the related issues on that. I will then begin PRing chunks of features next week along with Luke (epicleafies). The target features are all listed in the project’s Issues. I also plan on spending time to learn Figma Make
16:05:36 <johnny9dev> and Figma’s MCP server. I’ve seen some real world cases of it being very effective the last two weeks and need to explore this for gui-qml.
16:05:54 <johnny9dev> For gui, dergoegge asked if the test bridge would work for qt so I some time porting over the test automation bridge. It’s still a bit rough and needs some more validation/review but I started the draft on bitcoin-core/gui#933. Interested in what people think about this approach. Flakiness can be a problem initially with end to end tests so effort will need to be done to make sure it’s all solid before really moving forward with
16:05:54 <johnny9dev> something like this. Animations, process initializing, and timings can be tricky but this shouldn’t be much worse than what y’all already deal with for the bitcoind functional tests.
16:05:55 <corebot> johnny9dev: Error: That URL appears to have no HTML title within the first 32KB.
16:06:00 <kanzure> does figma export to qml?
16:06:14 <johnny9dev> you can use the mcp bridge to help translate figma to code
16:06:20 <dergoegge> johnny9dev: cool, I'll have a look at that
16:06:59 <johnny9dev> epicleafies has been helping with qml also
16:07:25 <johnny9dev> epicleafies: can you give status?
16:08:04 <epicleafies> Yeah, I've finished the debug log page and am working on the proxy settings to persist
16:08:59 <johnny9dev> he also fully completed peers ban/disconnect including an end to end automated gui test with it
16:09:22 <johnny9dev> i think that will probably be the most complicated one too
16:09:26 <johnny9dev> with multiple nodes
16:10:14 <johnny9dev> i think that is all
16:11:19 <fjahr> I'm not seeing any of the other WG chairs.
16:11:25 <fjahr> #proposedmeetingtopic logging system (_aj_)
16:11:25 <corebot> fjahr: Unknown command: #proposedmeetingtopic
16:11:30 <fjahr> sorry
16:11:33 <_aj_> There's about a dozen open PRs/issues about changing the
16:11:33 <_aj_> logging API, many of which have been open for almost two years now. Here's a table: https://gist.github.com/ajtowns/ff6247953437270ce81998bc0f7d6739 Many of these changes seem to me to make things substantially worse for working on bitcoin node software, and at this point it feels like a denial of service attack: "oh, you disagreed with this PR? well, we'll keep that one open as a sword of
16:11:33 <_aj_> damocles, but also, how about this slightly different PR with slightly different motivations?" which just leaves me giving what feel like endless "Concept NACKs" and getting more frustrated. There are still a couple of followups to #28318 that I'd like to get in (namely #34038, and once that's done, switching the map of categories to an atomic bitfield), so I'd rather keep being somewhat involved,
16:11:33 <_aj_> but this is pretty exhausting. So I'd really like it if folks who are a bit more dispassionate on the issue could get involved and express opinions on whether any of the proposed changes are actually valuable/desired, and ideally for the number of open proposals to get trimmed down a lot.
16:11:35 <corebot> _aj_: Error: That URL appears to have no HTML title within the first 32KB.
16:11:36 <fjahr> #topic logging system
16:11:37 <corebot> _aj_: Error: That URL appears to have no HTML title within the first 32KB.
16:12:01 <achow101> (will debug the bot after the meeting)
16:12:26 <_aj_> (fin)
16:12:54 <sipa> #proposedmeetingtopic I saw release notes editing for 31.0 moved to the wiki (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/31.0-Release-Notes-Draft), it's probably good for everyone to have a look over that and add things that users ought to see
16:12:54 <corebot> sipa: Unknown command: #proposedmeetingtopic
16:13:09 <sipa> (not really a topic, just wanted to mention)
16:13:19 <_aj_> (did anyone actually announce the branch off happened btw?)
16:13:48 <sipa> Day changed to 12 Mar 2026
16:13:48 <sipa> 01:56:13 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 pushed 5 commits to 31.x: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b97abdcdf139...d3737769caac
16:14:40 <achow101> _aj_: how many major opinions on logging direction are there? 2?
16:15:03 <fanquake> 3 I think
16:15:08 <fjahr> there seem to be three PR authors
16:15:13 <fanquake> depending on the part of the codebase
16:15:24 <fjahr> (of currently active prs)
16:15:52 <dzxzg2> if it's possible to express succinctly, what are the different goals / usecases / motivations for changing the interface?
16:16:43 <_aj_> i think there's a few different ones about the kernel (if you have multiple validation objects running, can their logs be separated; if you have multiple loggers and one validation state, can they get different info); there's a desire to pass different amounts of state to the Log*() functions (some or all of wallet name, category, level), and there's sometimes a desire to have all messages have a
16:16:43 <_aj_> category (LogInfo(NET, "connected to new outbound"))
16:19:10 <fanquake> Rough count but I think there's about ~15 different logging related refactors / PRs open at the moment
16:20:21 <dergoegge> Some of the kernel related logging questions seem worthwhile solving but idk about the naming and calling conventions (that just seems like an endless pit to pour time into)
16:21:16 <_aj_> the kernel stuff impacts the calling convention -- if you want logging from CheckBlock to go two different places, you have to pass in the two different logging systems into the LogDebug(..) call, eg
16:21:40 <sipa> what does "two different places" mean?
16:22:19 <_aj_> if you're running two different ChainstateManager's in the same process, and want to log the work they're doing / the failures they have independently
16:23:36 <l0rinc> are these logging change suggestions fundamentally mutually exclusive?
16:23:40 <sipa> i'm confused about why that would be the case, or why the code in question would know about it at all
16:23:45 <sipa> so i'll need to look at the PRs
16:23:53 <dzxzg2> l0rinc: +1
16:24:02 <_aj_> #34062 is possibly a good start
16:24:04 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34062 | RFC: separate kernel logging infrastructure · Issue #34062 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:24:11 <_aj_> welcome back corebot
16:24:15 <abubakarsadiq> hi
16:24:27 <l0rinc> is this related to different wallets and processes logging to different output files?
16:25:32 <sedited> fwiw I think this is a nice to have, but the discussions and time sunk into logging as opposed to making things actually more useful seems skewed. I'd be happy with a simple albeit imperfect solution for now.
16:25:44 <sedited> l0rinc I think that is orthogonal
16:26:40 <ryanofsky> yeah i think we can easily make progress on this stuff, by just focusing on logging prs that are noncontroversial
16:28:13 <_aj_> ryanofsky: closing the near-alternatives, and just keeping the "best" of them open would be a win in my view (best==your opinion after taking feedback into account, not necessarily least-controversial/most-likely-to-be-acceptable; imo anyway)
16:29:10 <dzxzg2> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forks#Pages_of_the_same_type_on_the_same_subject
16:30:20 <l0rinc> It seems to me the logging problems aren't obvious to most of us, it seems to be mostly working already - can we start with listing the exact problems?
16:30:21 <fjahr> Maybe ask for review here again when there is a clear point were more feedback is needed. Hard to motivate yourself to go through the full list and find that for yourself, IMO.
16:31:43 <ryanofsky> i guess my general feeling is it is not good to spend time have meta-debates about what code should be reviewed and generally peole should just review things they are interested, and maintain prs they are interested in maintaining
16:32:25 <ryanofsky> if some progress is being blocked, but i am not aware of that happening
16:32:47 <fjahr> Seems like the details of logging can continue to be discussed after the meeting. Is there anything else to discuss that should be in the meeting?
16:32:53 <_aj_> fjahr: i think you could reasonably go through the gist above and say "this is ugly, is there really a big benefit?" or "this is much better than what we do now! i like it!" and have that be a useful contribution
16:32:54 <ryanofsky> sgtm
16:33:10 <ryanofsky> yeah i'll take a look at the gist
16:33:22 <achow101> fjahr: topic for 31.0?
16:33:37 <fjahr> #topic v31
16:33:52 <achow101> we branched on tuesday night, tagged v31.0rc1 yesterday
16:34:00 <_aj_> yay!
16:34:21 <achow101> there's a backports pr and still a couple things in the milestone, so definitely will have a rc2
16:34:34 <achow101> any new issues to add to the milestone?
16:35:07 <achow101> also release notes draft is in the wiki
16:35:47 <janb84> Testing guide will be adressed by BOSS program / me
16:36:03 <fjahr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/74
16:37:08 <achow101> otherwise that's all
16:37:37 <fjahr> Any other topics?
16:37:37 <maflcko> I wanted to fix all intermittent test issues for this release, so if you are seeing any new, please let me know :)
16:37:45 <fanquake> Looks like I just saw another one
16:37:50 <fanquake> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34367#issuecomment-4048211050
16:38:03 <fanquake> (happened in the backports branch)
16:38:22 <fanquake> I assume we'll fix all the multiprocess issues with another subtree pull?
16:38:37 <fanquake> (once the rest of the issues there are fixed)
16:38:41 <maflcko> Maybe let the functional tests run in a loop over night, this night, and see if it is still running the next morning. If not, leave an issue. (Make sure to increase --timeout-factor for smaller machines)
16:39:34 <fanquake> I don't have a Windows machine, so someone on Windows will have to do that for that issue (maybe UCRT related)
16:40:26 <maflcko> oh, I meant in general, to see if *all* dev machines and platforms can run the tests smoothly
16:40:48 <fanquake> Yea sure, will be running
16:40:53 <maflcko> nice, thx
16:41:34 <fjahr> #endmeeting