At least GH has that “Co-authored-by:” feature

moneromoooo How do you want to do the pick_preferred_rct_inputs PR? What if I add both commits you pushed, plus the patch I added on top for a total of 3 commits and you close the other PR? I just don't want 2 PRs open for the sake of the reviewers.

Alright then. But you'll lose my sigs if you get to rebase so would have to ping me then.

What exactly do you mean with "losing sigs"? I have a similar situation where I merged a PR into one of my PRs, which now has two commits

And I did have to rebase

A signature signs not only the patch contents but the tree it applies to. Roughly. So even if the patch itself doesn't change, the sig would be stale.

So this is only about signed commits, signed with your key?

Yes.

If you don't sign commits, you don't care.

Ah, ok. Thanks, I didn't sign, and neither did j-berman who made the PR to my PR.

I don't really like PRing other people's stuff because it kinda implies I vouch for it.

I did it when people went awol but it feels a bit wrong.

Well, I guess it doens't really imply it, but in my mind it kinda does.

I see what you mean. I also hesitated in my case to merge, but it seemed, as an exception, the way of least resistance.

jeffro256[m]: added a unit test demoing tx validation result caching in seraphis github.com/UkoeHB/monero/blob/a8eee…sts/unit_tests/seraphis_tx.cpp#L227

try_get_tx_contextual_validation_id doesn't include any data from the validation context in the hash. Is this intentional?

I assume this is the Seraphis analouge of the mix ring

Jeff jeffro256[m] it doesn’t?

Oops I was looking at the coinbase version my bad

I've got a lot of reading to do lol

lol yeah coinbase tx validation is contextless since I decided that block reward and block height validation should be done more ad hoc

the block reward depends on tx fees anyway

idk, I suppose the validation context could also be used to check coinbase height and reward, guess we will see if that's needed in practiced

practice*