<r4v3r23> yes, authorship got mangled somehow, polyseed is under also czarek for some reason > <@tobtoht> that's my code lol

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> should be an easy fix. just need to drop the commit and re-commit it as authored by tob

<r4v3r23> @tobtoht: so its a straight wallet2 implementation? is that something that could be PR'd? if were all using it, it probably makes sense to just add it to codebase

<r4v3r23> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: yeah lemme see if i can just overwrite it

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> git rebase -i HEAD~5

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> change "pick" to "edit" next to the commits that need to be changed[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/1Iy_mo0LWUxBZ2wy ]

<r4v3r23> yeah i did it

<r4v3r23> email showed up as tob⊙fo so just used that

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Yeah i might have written that down wrong

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Yep, its tob

monero-project/monero #10545 would need reviews

.merge+ 10749 10750 10751

Added

.merges

10742 10743 10749 10750 10751

done

<r4v3r23> tobtoht could your coin control changes be used as the basis for a PR?

<r4v3r23> selsta also, since the airgapped signing feature has now been more or less standardized, can we something like this added to monero? feather-wallet/monero 9a29723.patch

if someone PRs it yes, but I don't have time for these features at the moment

<r4v3r23> selsta: sure, im thinking for v0.19

<jpk68:matrix.org> Is anyone opposed to 7201? It looks fine to me

<rbrunner7> 7201? You maybe missing a digit here?

<jpk68:matrix.org> Nope :)

<jpk68:matrix.org> simplewallet: Unify the formatting of help texts

<tobtoht> Well, it would need to be rebased first.

<jpk68:matrix.org> True, but asides from being out of date, I mean

<rbrunner7> I think we don't usually do such more or less pure refactorings. We don't even correct the dumbest indentations ...

<rbrunner7> I if being the Monero CEO would order to do that differently, but well ...

<tobtoht> There are mixed tabs and spaces in critical wallet2 tx construction code that I stumble over every time... T.T

<tobtoht> @jpk68:matrix.org: LGTM at a glance.

<jpk68:matrix.org> The rule for "no refactors" might not apply here since it's user-facing, but what do I know

<tobtoht> The bar should be exponentially higher the closer it gets to consensus, yes.

<rbrunner7> Whoever wants to rebase that would probably have to check very carefully whether some texts were reformulated in the meantime. Or can we fully rely on git to produce a merge conflict when that happened?

<rbrunner7> *if that happened

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> should be a merge conflict

<tobtoht> Might be easier to "re-do" than rebase.

<rbrunner7> Right

<jpk68:matrix.org> Yeah, that's what I was thinking

<jeffro256> @tobtoht:monero.social: that and process_new_transaction() are pretty horrible to look at > <@tobtoht> There are mixed tabs and spaces in critical wallet2 tx construction code that I stumble over every time... T.T

<jpk68:matrix.org> @jeffro256: Oh my god, that's insane. Just looked at it now for the first time :((

<jpk68:matrix.org> How does one even understand what's going on there

<tobtoht> I think I PR'd a fix for this once (#7001a moo told me

<tobtoht> Let's strive to make life a little easier for our co-devs going forward shall we?