16:58:09 Meeting in 1 hour 18:00:01 Meeting time. Hello! https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/1322 18:00:25 Howdy 18:00:53 *waves* 18:01:36 Hello 18:02:06 Alright, let's start with the reports from last week 18:02:17 Hi 18:02:44 mainly worked on vtnerds review comments [here](https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/10232#pullrequestreview-3623648856) 18:02:49 also updated #9464 and left a comment https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/9464#issuecomment-3724414260 18:02:59 Me: no tangible updates on lws/lwsf, working on something unrelated 18:03:04 and created a new branch for "replace wallet2 with Wallet API in `monero-wallet-rpc`" (but not much happened on it) 18:03:36 That work just got financed, right? Nice. 18:04:39 Yes, huge thanks to all supporters and donors 18:05:23 me: we released v1.5 of the alpha stressnet (seems to be holding up reasonably well), completed a solution for the xmrig segfault (upstream PR incoming), 0xfffc merged my tx relay v2 changes into his branch (thank you!), we may be in solid shape for beta soon 18:07:11 Any news about any ongoing Carrot related reviews, jeffro256 ? 18:08:24 Me: I'm working on implementing the scaling changes for beta stressnet 18:09:09 On of the firms reached out to maybe perform a partial or full audit of carrot_core, which would be awesome. I won't mention it more until they commit 18:09:27 Changes designed to trigger effects earlier, as discussed recently? Different from the "real" Mainnet scaling parameters 18:11:53 Anyway. I have something that may make sense to discuss in this round, maybe enough "brains" currently present to make sense 18:12:49 Recently I glanced over vtnerd 's review of the expanded Wallet API, as an API, where some mention of `monero_c` got me thinking 18:12:55 ( believe the latter, the "real" mainnet scaling params) 18:13:15 If I am not mistaken, it's about this one: https://github.com/MrCyjaneK/monero_c 18:13:55 I think it was some question about compatibility of the new Wallet API release with a "C only" wrapper, regarding callbacks? 18:14:21 For free btw 18:14:58 Which leads me to the question: Is it our responsibility, while modifying and expanding the Wallet API, to make such C based wrappers not unnecessarily hard and complicated, or is this out of scope, so to say? 18:15:09 the comment for reference https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/10232#discussion_r2658678511 18:15:53 Thanks, sneedlewoods, exactly that :) 18:16:11 But there may be other possible pain points 18:17:21 I don't know much about monero_c, but AFAIK it's important enough that we should not break it 18:17:34 Yes the monero_c code doesn't support listeners as it's a bit messy to support. So the password change for listeners hopefully won't be required for API users or monero _c has a bunch of work (and so does dart bindings et al) 18:17:50 I was mistaken, I first thought it is still based directly on wallet2 ... 18:17:53 Monero_c is used by cake afaik 18:17:57 +1 to keeping the C wrapper in mind 18:18:12 and therefore +1 to avoid required callbacks 18:18:19 Skylight definitely is too 18:18:48 Ah, so you can get everything running with ignoring callbacks entirely? 18:18:55 That's all related to `unattended` setting, iamamyth also left a comment I need to dig into https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/10232#discussion_r2674328535 18:19:15 Was wondering about that "unattended" 18:19:51 Currently, yes. But needed SNeedlewoods @sneedlewoods_xmr:matrix.org: to respond about newer changes as I haven't gone through the implementation, primarily just went through the API which is still pretty lengthy 18:20:21 Currently yes -> listeners are not required 18:21:22 AFAICT they're still not required if you keep `unattended = true` as it was the default before, but have to double check 18:21:57 Ah ok, will have to go back through and verify all of this then 18:23:20 By the way, is the author "MrCyjaneK" active around here, in the Matrix rooms and/or on IRC? Maybe it would be good for them to have a look what we are up to here ... 18:23:52 Easier to correct / adjust things now than later 18:23:57 I would tag them on GitHub, they've commented on something I've done before 18:24:57 Maybe even ready to help reviewing, who knows 18:25:44 So things are probably safe. Good to hear. 18:26:24 Anything else to discuss today? 18:27:20 Not from me, will post updates on the PRs or in here during the week when I figured things out+ 18:28:11 Well then. Thanks everybody for attending, read you again next week! 18:28:42 thanks! 18:31:09 thanks everyone, see ya