08:24:47 .merges 08:24:47 -xmr-pr- 9287 9345 9357 9380 9414 9416 9421 9425 9426 9429 9430 08:24:56 so when do we plan a new release? 08:45:46 Ask in today's meeting? 09:33:58 Quick reminder that we will have a meeting here today 18:00 UTC, not anymore in #no-wallet-left-behind:monero.social. Announcement: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/1053 11:16:55 sech1: luigi is away after wednesday for a bit 11:17:00 so we'd have to tag before that 11:20:32 And gui? I want to release p2pool 4.1 before that 11:31:06 I guess the time frame is the same for gui 12:28:55 We should keep this room for current repo stuff. Todays meeting probably an exception, but stuff that isnt on the repo should be in a different room. 12:28:57 i suggest renaming and readderessing nwlb to monero-next/upgrade/evolution, and doing the meetings there. -dev for current repo work, -next/upgrade/evolution for in progress dev work that is not on the repo, and mrl for ideas/research 12:33:37 > We should keep this room for current repo stuff. 12:33:51 Why would that be better? What issue, what potential problem would that solve? 12:34:34 nwlb is the place of discussion fkr the topics, it should be the place for the meeting 12:34:59 Problem is that nwlb is named incorrectly, its not just a wallet room 12:35:29 And doesnt have monero- addressing 12:35:37 If we move FCMP discussions between meetings to here as well, things are ok then? 12:36:27 We are hell-bent to introduce and hardfork to FCMP *as soon as possible*, right? 12:36:47 no, fcmp has 0 prevalence on monero-project/monero. Fcmp and seraphis should be in monero-next/upgrades/evolution (aka nwlb) 12:37:14 Its not finished, not even in review stage 12:37:54 Why should GitHub repositories and their content or content that is missing there decide what we should or should not discuss here? I am pretty confused about the approach. 12:38:28 future protocol upgrades already have their own place of discussion, its just lost due to the naming if the room 12:38:39 The same reason nwlb even exist, rbrunner. 12:38:51 Is this room overflowing with long and complicated discussions? 12:39:20 The logic of "move meeting to -dev" woukd also apply to "delete nwlb and move all discussion about seraphis and fcmo to -dev" 12:39:35 Nwlb is 12:39:45 Apart from deleting what has historical value - yes, let's move!$ 12:40:22 All Monero development 12:40:36 I disagree 12:41:38 its not monero development until its on the repo. Seraphis is 2+n years away 12:41:59 Fcmp likely >12 months before hitting the repo 12:42:31 And that's why we are not welcome to meet here weekly and discuss FCMP? 12:42:54 Yes 12:43:03 Strange 12:43:55 Where is the benefit, the win, the improvement only to discuss things here that are "in the repo". I ask again, is the room overflowing with too much stuff? 12:44:03 nwlb should be a room dedicated to upgrades that arent on repo yet 12:44:23 (nwlb should be renamed and readdressed) 12:44:44 The benefit is the same as "why we have nwlb" or "why we have mrl" 12:45:16 We dont have mrl meetings here for the same reason we shouldn't have seraphis or from meetings here 12:45:30 Seraphis or fcmp* 12:45:54 Re overflowing: no -dev is not, but mrl and nwlb are 12:48:44 I can't follow. The MRL and the MWLB rooms are overflowing with too much stuff? Like, right now, this week, last week, last month? 12:49:34 Should we do mrl meetings in -dev? 12:50:03 If I say no, I have lost? 12:50:41 Yes 12:50:46 :) 12:52:01 Thing is: It seems, at least to me, that "research" and "development" are quite easy to make into two heaps. If you want to part "development" further into sub-heaps, you arrive, IMHO, exactly at the situation that prompted the resurrection of general-purpose dev meetings of yesteryears: Something will always fall through the cracks. 12:54:37 -dev meetings can still resume, but should focus on releases, triaging issues and prs, dev reports and potentially dev ccs discussion 12:54:41 If you ask me, we will see pretty fast whether we are on the wrong track: If we have, after broadening the scope of the meeting, so many things to discuss that people lose overview and 1 hour is hopelessly too short, it's clearly "back to the drawing board". If we fare ok with a single meeting, well, "simple is simply simpler" 12:55:38 If you have so many things to discuss in a dev meeting as you see it before your inner eye, why aren't there such meetings? 12:56:08 because i was banned 12:56:14 :) 12:56:18 Oh, plot twist 12:57:40 i had no comments to make / no observations to observe. The above is how i think dev meetings are best served 12:57:52 they dont have to run an hour either 12:58:41 Well, I am curious whether others will read and leave their opinion. I think I get your general idea now, but I still don't see enough improvement compared with a dead-simple meeting discussing all things Monero dev, whether on repo or off repo or whatever 12:59:09 And with the meeting right here. The channel will bear about 300 new lines from the meeting. 13:00:58 I am not sure you are fully awary how shy a kind of animals our real devs are, the ones actually writing C++ and Rust code. With too many meetings and too many rooms you don't win but they just run away and hide. 13:02:51 And after all discussions are not at all restricted to this room, or 5 other dev related rooms at that. Proper place for dev related discussion are, to a large extent, GitHub issues. 13:06:09 Mrl, upgrades/next, dev 13:06:09 3 rooms, 3 tiers of development, 3 distinct crowds, 3 purposes 13:21:54 "And that's why we are not welcome to meet here weekly and discuss FCMP?" , "Yes" :o 13:58:23 FWIW I consider this canonically on topic. 16:36:50 sech1: can you release that today? 16:38:26 yes, I'm waiting for CI to finish building the binaries 16:38:55 https://github.com/SChernykh/p2pool/actions/runs/10354764833 16:48:56 <0xfffc:monero.social> My vote is to have the regular meeting in another room. Not that it is unrelated to here. No. It is just this room is extremely crowded. And there is always Q/A going on. 17:05:49 Meeting here (at least for today ...) in a bit less than 1 hour 17:14:09 Arguably having the meetings in the 'core' rooms will increase visibility and participation 17:14:31 Having the meetings scattered across many rooms will probably reduce participation 17:18:29 plus, discussion related to the major refactoring being done to allow for future code additions is arguably pretty on topic 17:24:48 10 Monero devs with around 20 opinions :) 17:36:14 one day in the coming years i am getting involved in at least one of these: 17:36:15 - some crypto development(xmr? bch?) 17:36:17 - some kernel or firmware development(linux? freebsd?) 17:36:19 - some compiler development(sbcl?) 17:36:21 the idea is trying a new method of programming to tackle with problems which require a total new mindset, different than what i had till now. 17:36:27 one day in the coming years i am getting involved in at least one of these: 17:36:29 - some crypto development(xmr? bch?) 17:36:31 - some kernel or firmware development(linux? freebsd?) 17:36:33 - some compiler development(sbcl?) 17:36:35 the idea is trying a new method of programming to tackle with problems which require a total new mindset, different than what i had till now. 17:37:31 to be precise, in exactly one of these 17:44:10 Arguably having the meetings in the 'core' rooms will increase visibility and participation << nwlb would become a "core" room 17:44:40 its current name and status is foggy as best 17:45:13 Its like "where we put everything that we dont know where to put, because its neither -dev or -mrl" 17:47:02 the same argument for creating nwlb is the same argument for expanding it to encapsule more than seraphis wallets (which it has already done, by becoming the come of all things seraphis, fcmp, and any other not-yet production items) 17:48:38 The only thing that needs to change is the room name and address, from nwlb to monero-pickaname 17:55:29 How about #monero-devel ? We'll make fedora and debian people both happy. 17:56:12 Windows people can stay in #monero :D And #monero-gui for Mac users. 17:56:38 What does "devel" stand for? Just "development" abbreviated a bit differently? 17:57:13 Yes. Headers are in -dev packages for debian and -devel packages for fedora. Or vice versa, I always forget. 17:57:42 So all clarity successfully eliminated :) 17:57:47 Thank you. 17:58:59 Just to clear something up for me, some version of fcmp *will* most probably end up in monero, barring unforeseen problem, correct ? 17:59:14 Yes. 17:59:19 Thanks. 17:59:39 After audits, testing, and scaling is sorted 18:00:07 Meeting time. Hello! https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/1053 18:00:19 *waves* 18:00:22 hey 18:00:32

Hello. 18:00:48 Hi 18:00:58 Hi 18:01:02 Hello 18:01:07 <0xfffc:monero.social> Hi everyone 18:01:14 hi 18:01:24 Is there an agenda for this meeting? 18:01:30 hello 18:01:35 No 18:01:42 howdy 18:01:52 Before we come to the reports: We have a surprising amount of ideas floating around how many dev meetings with what kind of foci in which rooms we should hold. 18:02:07 I propose to keep discussion about this *out of this meeting* 18:02:18 I think we should use the time to discuss dev related things. 18:02:45 Meta-discussion about meetings should go, IMHO, in a new issue in -meta on GitHub 18:03:00 Since were in dev, lets start with pressing dev matters. 18:03:01 1. We have to tag by wednesday 18:03:06 If people are ok with that, I can open such an issue later. 18:03:49 What is there to report from last week? 18:04:01 Is everybody ready to tag, or are there any issues or PR's that need review or implementation asap 18:04:32 Can you please hold back for 5 minutes more, so we can get the usual overview who did what during the last week? Thanks. 18:04:36 I'll release p2pool v4.1 today which needs to be included in monero-gui v0.18.3.4 18:05:30 added missing functions to the API, now just TODO's and QUESTIONs to fix, I think I can see the finish line, but it will probably still take a while 18:05:59 Sneedlewoods, this for what? 18:06:18 Seraphis? 18:06:47 me: finalizing a draft PR + writeup for the fcmp++ integration, shooting to submit that PR by tomorrow. The PR so far includes a Rust FFI to use @kayabaNerve's fcmp++ crate, code to migrate existing cryptonote outputs into a merkle tree for fcmp++'s, growing the tree as the node syncs, an algo to trim the tree, and changes to the `cryptonote::transaction` class for fcmp++. I plan 18:06:49 to also implement tx construction & verification, and consensus changes in that PR 18:06:57 file df_draft_fcmp_v1.pdf too big to download (1184797 > allowed size: 1000000) 18:06:59 df_draft_fcmp_v1.pdf 18:07:03 This week I continued reading the code and theory of FCMP. I still don't understand the details of the circuits in the `prove` and `verify` functions and the exact details to fetch and store the tree in the database but I will improve my understanding with time since I'm much more familiar with the code and terms used. I believe it would be better to try to do something concrete n 18:07:05 ow. Here is a draft of my understanding so far of some concepts. There may be big errors and imprecisions and it is still very shallow. Take it with a big grain of salt. I will improve it as I also improve my understanding. 18:07:34 @jberman: What will you PR against? 18:07:52 me: polishing the carrot doc and soliciting auditors (I have one meeting planned thus far) 18:07:56 master in core Monero 18:08:31 Also started to prepare my incoherent notes of things I found during the API work all over the place and plan to create a github issue for that. Not sure if I should put it into monero-project issues though, because it's a bunch and I don't think it makes sense to create a github issue for everything I found suspicous. 18:08:33 So much about "future stuff" :) 18:08:56 <0xfffc:monero.social> Me: since Wednesday I was reviewing different PR. The big one is reproducible build PR 8929. Which review is almost complete. 18:09:02 off topic rbrunner, dont bait me 18:09:18 Will that go into a separate fcmp branch for the time being? 🤔 Can't be marged on master till it's ready, no? 18:09:32 You asked nicely to leave that discussion out of this meeting 18:09:48 Alright, understood. 18:09:52 It could be merged but not activated 18:10:31 Similar to some of koe's seraphis preparedness prs 18:10:48 @rottenwheel I'm thinking it could remain a WIP draft PR until it's ready 18:12:14 Me: worked on socks v5 - adding ipv6 support to proxy requests. Also worked on LWS frontend API project 18:13:05 So soon people will be able to run their own LWS instances, are you nearing completion? 18:13:47 They already can 18:13:49 sorry ofrn, I'm slow, I think here you can get enough information what I'm working on in general https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/9368#issuecomment-2168451558 18:14:17 They are already able to run their own LWS instances, there just isn't many wallets supporting it because there's a decent amount of work to tx construction in particular 18:14:36 I see. 18:14:47 The LWS API is json, and is pretty straightforward I think 18:15:28 <0xfffc:monero.social> One important thing is the PR 9404 [1] needs reviewer. The PR has been running on stressnet with different scenarios. And no issues has been reported. With this PR, we have instantaneous start up. 18:15:29 <0xfffc:monero.social> 1. https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/9404 18:15:30 i've already done all that work 18:15:35 vtnerd and rbrunnner 18:15:49 thank you endogenic 18:15:51 i've told you this a few times, but i havent ever been contavted by vtnerd 18:16:01 I told him a few times, but somehow we didn't end up being able to collaborate yet 18:16:06 The problem is that I haven't published it yet 18:16:12 endogenic, show and tell 18:16:13 The only reason I haven't done that is because I don't have help 18:16:49 you say show it but what happens is that everyone else is just going to use my stuff before I get to actually launch my own product - this is just because I don't have any funding or any help from anyone 18:16:56 so it sounds a little bit like a Catch-22, but I swear that I have done all of the work already 18:17:03 it's directly from wallet2 18:17:21 i'm sure we can figure something out, but I literally am programming right now and I'm so close to releasing this stuff but I've just had to make it better because of the fact that all this other work is happening meaning I have to progress even further before I can release 18:17:28 so if we had worked together, then I think it would've been released already 18:17:33 it's just not fair to me either 18:17:34 Alright, looks like we are through with the reports. ofrnxmr , we have a pressing issue, tagging a new release? 18:17:37 it's actually been really difficult 18:17:41 to see this 18:17:58 geez so cold? 18:18:16 yes. We have to tag the new release by wednesday 18:18:19 Is it in a private GitHub repo, or something completely offline? 18:18:31 me? vtnerd? 18:18:34 private repos 18:18:36 yes 18:18:39 long history 18:18:42 many commits 18:19:05 Pardon my ignorance, why do we *have* to tag? Would a long pause result if we don't? 18:19:40 i've been homeless at times.. and many other things no one would believe lol 18:19:49 Im not sure about the reasoning dor 18.3.4, id have thought it should be 18.4.0 (?) Major minor patch, this isnt just a bugfix release. 18:19:58 Then just make it public, it's the least friction. Theres probably no shot at keeping it private, it's unlikely people will support private wallet code 18:20:10 I don't intend to keep it private at all 18:20:14 it's not intended to be private 18:20:21 it's just intended to be ready before it's released publicly 18:20:38 But it puts me at a major disadvantage to release all my work when everyone else has so much funding and help 18:20:45 especially because my work is actually pretty interesting 18:20:53 I have a huge write up.. 18:20:55 and selsta would be the one to ask about "why" wednesday, im just relaying the message 18:20:59 Ok, do we have @selsta around, they may have the best overview what is needed in order to tag. 18:21:31 Endogenic has been delivering groundbreaking code since before the 2000s! 18:21:36 vtnerd would you be open to collaborating with me privately on the lws support for 2-3 weeks max? then it all goes public 18:21:47 Is anybody here right now directly involved in that release? With contributing PRs that may still not be re ready? 18:21:48 He just hasn't been able because the life threats and lack of funding guys! 18:21:49 rottenwheel please, man, you're going to eat your words 18:22:07 you have no idea 18:22:13 what i have been through.. 18:22:30 endo, please ignore 18:22:31 lws support is done tbh 18:22:33 on my side 18:22:51 rottenwheel, @endogenic, maybe this special topic can wait until after this very meeting? 18:22:53 i just need to update ny client for vtnerds new api 18:22:59 as you know he added spenda and recvs 18:23:01 i think it both a negative and positive we have duplicated efforts around endogenics area of work/expertise. neg being the dupl efforts, positive being we have more than 1 developer who understands the problem and can pick apart each others implementation. but i think we should leave it at that for this meeting unless it is on the agenda 18:23:04 this was one of the things I was going to announce 18:23:12 create a private repo and invite vtnerd as collaborator? 18:23:32 Whatever does not derail this meeting. Please? 18:23:34 The only thing is that vtnerd might have confidentiality agreements, or he might not be willing to enter into a confidentiality agreement with me 18:23:38 that's why I was really trying to just launch everything 18:23:59 to be honest, honest with you, it's going to be trivial for me to update my client to work with vtnerds new api format 18:24:09 it's just that I was having a little bit of difficulty getting something compiling and stuff like this just takes more time 18:24:17 I don't have admin or any other special rights in here, by the way. If people insist on sabotaging this meeting, they will probably succeed. 18:24:19 there's no communication between me and him and so I can't just ask him about stuff 18:24:41 in other words, it's not like I'm paying him for his time so I don't feel comfortable asking him 18:24:50 **Regarding the release** << are there any prs that anyone is trying to get into the release or issues that need to be resolved? 18:24:54 we've asked a lot from him already to be honest 18:25:04 Plowsof has matrix ops 18:25:07 vtnerd: sorry I meant to address your comments on https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/9135 earlier this week; thanks for the review. In your opinion after looking at the PR's code, once those issues are addressed, do you think it worth including in the next release? 18:26:06 yes I'm around 18:26:09 jeffro256: I recall it being pretty much ready for inclusion 18:26:30 This is running on stressnet, but were unsure if it caused an increase in reorgs (?) Rucknium: 18:26:31 Btw that PR is running on the stressnet currently 18:27:26 The reorg increase _may_ have been due to a very poorly connected miner though 18:27:32 I was looking into this too, I *think* there were just more reorgs this time around, but I'm actively looking into it 18:27:38 ofrnxmr: jeffro256 These was an increase in re-orgs around the time that we put that PR into release, but other code was put in release, too. It's not a controlled experiment. 18:27:47 rbrunner7: nothing is needed anymore on the -cli side, but if something is ready and well reviewed we can include it with the next round of merges 18:27:56 And miner behavior isn't a controlled variable, either 18:27:58 There were already mass reorg messages before, but they didn't feel *as* common. Of course, there's been a lot of variables changed with the new fork 18:28:00 Sorry, Murphy's law. My cable modem just had the idea to reboot now. 18:28:44 Alright, seems I am back on track. 18:28:47 Sorry I keep duplicating people's thoughts delayed by 15 seconds lol 18:29:26 I will compile a stressnet node without the PR and observer reorg behavior 18:29:47 At any rate, it appears that the nodes are syncing just fine even with the increased messages 18:29:54 @jeffro: I also saw the reorgs with a stressnet daemon without your PR ... 18:30:00 (Reorgs have calmed down a lot on both new and old stressnet) 18:30:30 New stressnet isn't being spammed yet FWIW. 18:30:51 Ok, looks like we have the release and the tagging sorted, yes? At least as far as meeting participants are concerned. 18:31:08 gui is tagged separately? 18:31:10