1 2015-11-21 00:16:06 <raedah> in what file might I find the logic for how transactions are displayed in bitcoin-qt's transaction tab?
 2 2015-11-21 08:54:34 <jonasschnelli> raedah: you mean the logic for the rows in the transaction table or the transaction details window?
 3 2015-11-21 08:56:02 <jonasschnelli> Most table stuff is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/qt/transactiontablemodel.cpp
 4 2015-11-21 12:24:57 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: in the future, please don't submit the BIP pull request until it's been posted to the dev ML and had some review, or at the very least is completed
 5 2015-11-21 12:25:22 <Luke-Jr> (at least, looking over it, I don't see any actual specification?)
 6 2015-11-21 12:59:04 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: unfortunately the ML has been broken as of late
 7 2015-11-21 12:59:10 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: ⁈
 8 2015-11-21 12:59:54 <CodeShark> some of the people whose opinions I'd most like to hear no longer pay attention to the ML or have unsubscribe
 9 2015-11-21 12:59:59 <CodeShark> *unsubscribed
10 2015-11-21 13:00:47 <CodeShark> and BIP PRs are usually drafts at first anyhow
11 2015-11-21 13:01:02 <CodeShark> I'm not saying it's ideal
12 2015-11-21 13:01:40 <CodeShark> But I hear ya
13 2015-11-21 13:02:35 <CodeShark> anyhow, given the BIP assignment process uses PRs, I sorta thought that the process had moved towards submitting the PR even if it's just a draft...and then once it's assigned a number, it starts to be considered mergeable
14 2015-11-21 13:07:13 <btcdrak> CodeShark: I think basically you have to post to the ML, then ping #bitcoin-dev and #bitcoin-core-dev to ensure you get notification coverage
15 2015-11-21 13:08:15 <CodeShark> but might as well post a document that's already in the proper format (even if content is still missing) and let people comment inline
16 2015-11-21 13:08:23 <CodeShark> not saying it has to be a PR
17 2015-11-21 13:08:32 <CodeShark> but github seems like a better medium for this than IRC or email
18 2015-11-21 13:10:51 <CodeShark> heck, let's create a separate PR discussion repo :)
19 2015-11-21 13:10:58 <CodeShark> err, BIP discussion repo
20 2015-11-21 13:11:38 <CodeShark> we can propose there, discuss, then once more fleshed out and assigned a number, we move it over to the BIP publication repo
21 2015-11-21 13:13:14 <CodeShark> IRC is fine for interactive discussion regarding abstract ideas...but it isn't necessarily a good place to flesh out a specification
22 2015-11-21 13:13:33 <CodeShark> and the ML is hard to sift through if you want to specifically look at BIP proposals
23 2015-11-21 13:15:18 <CodeShark> copy/pasting wikimedia docs without the markup in plaintext seems like taking a step back
24 2015-11-21 13:17:19 <sipa> i usually write bip drafts first in gist, and then send a summary + link to the gist on the ML
25 2015-11-21 13:17:39 <CodeShark> I haven't seen you in the ML in ages, sipa ;)
26 2015-11-21 13:17:48 <sipa> i also haven't written a BIP in ages
27 2015-11-21 13:17:56 <sipa> s/write/wrote/
28 2015-11-21 13:20:28 <CodeShark> whatever, I just want an effective, efficient process...and I feel like I'm much more productive on these types of things when I work with people on github, google docs, etc...rather than via back-and-forth emails
29 2015-11-21 13:21:33 <CodeShark> interactive chat is fine for realtime interaction, but it's nice to collaborate on a document together
30 2015-11-21 13:25:45 <CodeShark> if bitcoin/bips isn't the place for initial discussion, I can create a new repo :)
31 2015-11-21 13:28:06 <CodeShark> anyhow, I don't think the ideas I'm proposing are particularly controversial...and I think they've all been discussed at some point in the ML, even if not explicitly as BIP proposals
32 2015-11-21 13:29:08 <sipa> yeah, i don't know what the right solution is here
33 2015-11-21 13:29:30 <sipa> it seems there is no good place anymore that's both inclusive and free of distraction
34 2015-11-21 13:36:41 <jtimon> come on, it has gotten much better with the moderation, even my BIP99 noise have been moved to bitcoin-discuss
35 2015-11-21 13:37:34 <sipa> maybe i should consider joining again :)
36 2015-11-21 13:37:49 <jtimon> you definitely should
37 2015-11-21 13:38:40 <jtimon> I mean, for now, not even bitcoin-discuss has much noise, but I suspect that will change...
38 2015-11-21 13:41:23 <jtimon> fwiw, CodeShark posted to the ml, I don't see the harm in creating a PR (although just a branch without opening the PR would probably have served for the initial discussion as well), PRs can always be just closed if the BIP proposal doesn't "survive the initial discussion"
39 2015-11-21 13:41:40 <CodeShark> that's my thinking exactly, jtimon
40 2015-11-21 13:41:48 <jtimon> I suspect the ml first rule serves to reduce noise in the bip repo though
41 2015-11-21 13:42:33 <jtimon> with bip99 I linked to my branch without opening a PR at first, and then eventually opened the PR
42 2015-11-21 13:42:45 <jtimon> people can comment on your branch too
43 2015-11-21 13:46:29 <CodeShark> I apologize if I didn't strictly follow the process...and yes, it could become a problem if people just start submitting PRs for a bunch of crap...and that the process in principle should apply to all equally. But I don't think we have a good process right now, and I feel that getting certain ideas out in the open and having people collaborate on them right
44 2015-11-21 13:46:29 <CodeShark> now is important
45 2015-11-21 13:47:25 <CodeShark> and I hope at least a few of you don't consider these proposals noise :)
46 2015-11-21 13:48:52 <CodeShark> if anything, I think posting hairbrained ideas to the ML is actually more distracting than opening up a hairbrained PR
47 2015-11-21 13:49:08 <CodeShark> *harebrained
48 2015-11-21 14:02:14 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: it's premature to even assign a number until there's a first draft
49 2015-11-21 14:03:06 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: anyhow, I only brought it up so it doesn't become a pattern other imitate
50 2015-11-21 14:04:42 <CodeShark> understood
51 2015-11-21 14:21:19 <btcdrak> For anyone who isnt subscribed to the mailing list, I posted this just now: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011797.html
52 2015-11-21 14:28:05 <CodeShark> BIP68 is now actually an enjoyable read - before I couldn't get passed the first paragraph :p
53 2015-11-21 14:28:46 <CodeShark> nicely done, btcdrak
54 2015-11-21 20:19:26 <benjyz1> hello. anyone know more about bitcoin-libc?
55 2015-11-21 20:49:30 <cocoBTC> benjyz1, never heard of
56 2015-11-21 20:51:28 <Luke-Jr> ok, BIP65-compatible BFGMiner released
57 2015-11-21 21:03:39 <btcdrak> Luke-Jr: whoop whoop
58 2015-11-21 22:24:28 <shesek> where can I find the current list of people with commit access to the github repo?
59 2015-11-21 22:31:08 <gmaxwell> shesek: you mean for bitcoin core?
60 2015-11-21 22:31:28 <shesek> gmaxwell, indeed, to bitcoin/bitcoin on github
61 2015-11-21 22:32:07 <shesek> is it the same as the org members at https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people ?
62 2015-11-21 22:32:59 <gmaxwell> no that includes people with commit access to the other repos.
63 2015-11-21 22:32:59 <shesek> not sure how that works on github and whether specific repos have more fine-grained access than the org members
64 2015-11-21 22:33:26 <shesek> yeah, I figured. any idea where github lists the users with commit access to a specific repo? I can't seem to find that anywhere...
65 2015-11-21 22:34:03 <gmaxwell> seems the list is non-public- and I don't see a way to make it public, but it's myself, wumpus, sipa, jeff, gavin, jonasschnelli (which was recently announced).
66 2015-11-21 22:35:36 <shesek> gmaxwell, thanks! might be good to put that up on the wiki somewhere
67 2015-11-21 22:35:50 <shesek> or in the README file, perhaps