For this that are interested, here are the logs from the dev meeting. Someone is working on an overview if you don't feel like reading the whole thing.
<fluffypony> who are we missing
<fluffypony> tewinget othe warptangent NoodleDoodle you guys around?
<warptangent> ^
<fluffypony> hokay
<dEBRUYNE> smooth?
<fluffypony> smooth and luigi1111w are around
<fluffypony> although luigi1111w is using some other nick
<fluffypony> luigi1112 I think
<luigi1114> 4
<moneromooo> mario1114
<fluffypony> lol
<fluffypony> about a year ago we did this using TeamSpeak
<fluffypony> I mean Mumble
<luigi1114> for you guys
<fluffypony> which was nice, but it isn't as fluid as typing because sometimes you can't hear that someone else is talking
<binaryFate> Firechat? Was cool
<fluffypony> binaryFate: no we did a couple of actual dev meetings
<fluffypony> but it's tough to sustain
<binaryFate> Oh ok
<xmrpromotions> I think typing is fine too.
<ArticMine> This is fine
<fluffypony> agreed
<fluffypony> plus there are people working on Monero that would prefer not to have to use a voice changer just to participate :-P
<fluffypony> ok so there are a few things on the agenda
<luigi1111> I'm sick so my voice is already changed
<warptangent> the format seems to have been working well for kovri too
<fluffypony> the first thing I think we should discuss is the dev branch
<fluffypony> we've fallen back into the habit of merging stuff to master
<moneromooo> That's because bugs
<fluffypony> I know
<fluffypony> we're going to have to do a point release to fix the v1/v2 stuck transactions bugs
<fluffypony> are there any bug fixes waiting in the wings, or should we do that next week?
<moneromooo> That last commit thing, which I'll have to think about a bit more.
<moneromooo> Also, possibly merging the per-tx bits in lmdb.
<hyc> which?
<moneromooo> tx_{unlocks,heights,outputs}
<hyc> ah
<moneromooo> And output_{keys,amounts,indices,txs}
<hyc> DB format change, I don't think that's a bug-fix
<moneromooo> Way more of htose than blocks
<fluffypony> maybe we need to consider a more generalised approach to format changes
<fluffypony> something like Laravel's migrations
<fluffypony> it'll have to be per-DB-format anyway
<fluffypony> per-DB-type I mean
<warptangent> i've got schema changes i've been using for a couple months, for better use on hdd, but they aren't bug fixes.
<warptangent> two sets of bug fixes not yet added though
<fluffypony> ok if they're not considered crucial for 0.9.x then we can put them into dev?
<hyc> warptangent: since I've been working on the same thing, I guess I should take a look at your stuff
<warptangent> 1. berkeleydb support for importer - almost ready, some argument usage cleanup
<moneromooo> Once I re-merged then
<hyc> but I don't consider anything I'm looking at now as bug-fix
<fluffypony> (this is how we meeting
https://i.imgur.com/OR5ZVoI.jpg)
<warptangent> 2. finish hf fix for importer - mostly done, pending some cleanup with bdb
<fluffypony> hokay
<hyc> (I have a wineglass here too, sadly empty)
<warptangent> hyc: yes, that would be good. i think i mentioned the tx changes last month to avoid as many subdbs with tx hash keys
<fluffypony> also I think the thing that's holding up a general move of effort to dev is that we haven't bundled CZMQ 0MQ in source, which makes compiling a bit painful
<fluffypony> any objections to the bundling?
<luigi1111> how much of a pain is it to change formats?
<hyc> I haven't even looked at dev. no objection from me
<fluffypony> luigi1111w: mostly just requires copying data to a new table and nuking the old one
<moneromooo> Hmm. I have a few patches to czmq, to make things build.
<moneromooo> Not super sure whether it was me being dumb or not though.
<fluffypony> ok well moneromooo, maybe post-bugfix do you want to do the merge from master to dev, and then plonk those patches on?
<fluffypony> I'll get it in the source tree the meantime, and cmake-ify all of the things
<moneromooo> I'll merge yes. Then you can add zmq to the cmake stuff
Then I'll add my patches if they're still needed.
<moneromooo> Great, ty
<fluffypony> great minds think alike
<fluffypony> ok next I'd like us to chat about a style guide
<fluffypony> we've been working on one in Kovri that we can possibly use for Monero
<fluffypony> https://github.com/monero-project/kovri/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style <hyc> oh, I do have one outstanding - tweak to BlocchainLMDB::get_estimated_batch_size - change batch_safety_factor to get blockchain_import to succeed on 32bit
<fluffypony> not necessary to read the style guide now, just more a general sense of if everyone is comfy with
a style guide, and if anyone has any particular preferences
<smooth> i have no objection to any reasonable style guide but i do object to re-styling of existing code
<moneromooo> Pages and pages of stuff ? :|
<moneromooo> I object too, if it's only restyling for the sake of it.
<fluffypony> ok so more of a restyle-as-you-go
<moneromooo> That massive reindent patch already caused me grief
<fluffypony> which is in line with our refactor-as-you-go approach
<ArticMine> Apply the style guide to new code
<smooth> imo the best policy is keep the style on small chages to existing code and new style on new code
<smooth> there is probably a gray area there
<warptangent> should we assume from this point on the code is indented like the majority of the code so far - 2 spaces, not tabs, not 4 spaces.
<hyc> agreed
<fluffypony> warptangent: that's the one area where we differ from Kovri, I'd lean towards yes
<moneromooo> I tend to keep the style of whatever I'm hacking on. And I doubt I'll read all that google style guide thing. I'd prefer we use common sense.
<warptangent> moneromooo: style on the current project though, not different styles per file, right?
<moneromooo> Whatever code I'm modifying.
<moneromooo> It causes the least problems.
<fluffypony> moneromooo: don't worry about the Google style guide, the 16 points we've put in for Kovri are more what I was referring to
<warptangent> the majority of files are one style in the codebase, with a few that became some kind of hybrid at one point
<moneromooo> Oh OK.
<moneromooo> With that out of the way...
<fluffypony> ok - everyone happy with that as a general starting point? I can dump those points in and then we can take pull requests on it if anyone wants to refine change things
<warptangent> yes, seems good
<hyc> I would push harder on "code should go in a .cpp not .h"
<fluffypony> hyc: agreed
<fluffypony> I'll make it clearer
<fluffypony> moneromooo: did you want to raise a point, or were you saying we can move on?
<hyc> overall it looks sane to me
<moneromooo> I'm good.
<fluffypony> ok
<fluffypony> next point is also administrative in nature
<fluffypony> we'd like to adopt the Collective Code Construction Contract that 0MQ uses, as a guide for project administrators and for contributors
<fluffypony> http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22 <fluffypony> we can discuss it more in future, but the long and the short of it
<fluffypony> is that we merge every PR as long as it doesn't break the build
<fluffypony> if it does something bad dangerous we can have a follow up PR to revert
<fluffypony> but the aim is to avoid PR-hell where everyone comments on a PR for days and weeks and it never gets merged
<fluffypony> because it's never "perfect"
<fluffypony> so merge, create issues on Github where something is lacking (eg. new feature, little or no tests - create issues for tests)
<moneromooo> This PR-hell problem's never happened, has it ?
<fluffypony> moneromooo: not in Monero yet, but Bitcoin is chock-full of it
<gingeropolous> ^ this is for dev branch, right?
<moneromooo> I think common sense is again a better thing than going the opposite extreme.
<fluffypony> gingeropolous: this is in general
<warptangent> i haven't read the zeromq document thoroughly, but does it leave room for the common sense aspect?
<fluffypony> moneromooo: the problem is that there are lots of nuanced situations where "common sense" isn't that common :-P
<smooth> i dont think there should be an arbitrary merge policy on master, but it is already stated by me that i dont think anything but tagged releases should go on master
<moneromooo> Well, if it's nuanced, fine.
<fluffypony> warptangent: it does, yes
<fluffypony> as explained by Pieter to binaryFate and I last year
<smooth> if the concept of only taggest releases on master is no adopted then i would oppose going even further in the other direction
<smooth> *tagged
<fluffypony> smooth: yes that's a given
<fluffypony> master represents a stable, tagged release
<fluffypony> we work in dev
<fluffypony> anyone that submits a PR to master gets it closed and asked to submit it to dev
<fluffypony> anyway what I wanted to say, is that Pieter explained that the reason that you want to merge-all-of-the-things and then revert something bad is that you have a historical record of the bad actor
<smooth> there needs to be a place for bug fix releases though
<binaryFate> I'm with you fluffypony. 0MQ founder/leader feedback on this approach was extremely valuable.
<moneromooo> There's also the potential thing about not being able to use the 0mq version in time for the next 6-month fork. It wasn't exactly usable yet last I hacked on it.
<binaryFate> Common sense might work now, long term with a higher market cap we'll face same issues as btc
<binaryFate> Where common sense diverges and the code Base ossifies
<xmrpromotions> As a non programmer smooths comment seems like the safer approach. Thank you for clarifying the master vs dev branch issue fluffy.
http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22 sounded scary as applied to PRs sent to master before dev
<fluffypony> smooth: it doesn't preclude it
<fluffypony> moneromooo: as it stands we're probably going to push the fork date out a little to see if we have enough room to work on RingCT, so that's fine
<binaryFate> What's the envisionned time scale for ringct?
<smooth> the idea of a historical record is good
<hyc> we have similar issues with OpenLDAP - you need 3 branches
<hyc> one for dev, one for released code, and one for release bugfixes
<smooth> but i would make the case then that 0MQ should be reverted since it is unusable
<hyc> particularly when dev and release are far apart
<smooth> im not actually proposing this because i know it would be a mess, but making a point for the future
<hyc> like now, where dev has 0MQ and release doesn't
<fluffypony> smooth: I agree - moneromooo and I will play around with it next week and make a decision
<moneromooo> Reverting isn't really possible.
<fluffypony> moneromooo: we could drop dev and re-branch
<moneromooo> But one could add ringCT to a new branch based on master.
<fluffypony> if it came to that, I mean
<moneromooo> That'd be a lot of pain. I'd rather not. Much better to hack on master and merge do dev again.
<fluffypony> ok
<smooth> imo something like zeromq should be developed on a separate branch somewhere, until it is actually usable
<moneromooo> s/on master/on a branch based off master/
<fluffypony> smooth: it was usable-ish, we might have regressed some in fiddling
<moneromooo> Yes, that.
<fluffypony> anyway - let's evaluate and figure out
<moneromooo> I think I added all missing RPC so it cn be used, just not by people who want it to work without problem.
<dnaleor> **<fluffypony> moneromooo: as it stands we're probably going to push the fork date out a little to see if we have enough room to work on RingCT, so that's fine <= I welcome this. Just wanted to say that imho it's important to have RingCT active in the september/october hard fork. Carry on. i'm watching
<hyc> doing all new work in dev is fine, but backporting bugfixes to release will become non-trivial as more features are added to dev
<fluffypony> hyc: I guess it depends on the importance of a bug fix
<moneromooo> It looks to me like ring CT is going to need a lot of changes to bitmonerod/CN. September looks very close.
<fluffypony> we'll see
<fluffypony> I don't think we need to create a pressure-cooker for it
<fluffypony> ok can I go on?
<ArticMine> There are trade offs here. I see problems if dev and master deviate materially
<xmrpromotions> it seems like 3 branches as smooth mentioned would be easiest for everyone in long run even if it requires more effort now. 1.dev 3. release and bug fixes
<fluffypony> xmrpromotions: otoh we can backport fixes straight into master to allow for immediate testing by affected parties
<ArticMine> With bug fixes as a transition from dev to master
<fluffypony> again depends on the nature of the bugfix
<fluffypony> like warptangent's work on BDB and the importer probably aren't critical enough to go into master
<warptangent> the importer works properly when it has the hard fork support though, and that uses the bdb support
<moneromooo> If someone wants to rewrite that hard fork code, btw, you're welcome. I don't like it, and I'm not sure how to improve it.
<ArticMine> My concern is master deviating materially from a quasi stable dev
<fluffypony> ArticMine: something like ringct would have to be done in both master and dev
<ArticMine> So a project based on master would need a major rewrite after a tagged release
<fluffypony> we did dual-PRs for a while
<fluffypony> we can do them again
<fluffypony> might be easier than The Grand Merge
<smooth> something like ringct should only be in dev imo
<ArticMine> Yes anything fundamental has to be done in parallel
<smooth> until it gets released of course
<fluffypony> I think let's defer further discussion of this till the next meeting
<luigi1111> agreed to both
<fluffypony> we don't have enough info on the ringct effort or on the state of the dev branch right now anyway
<binaryFate> One thing I miss in discussion is what is master purpose? Do we want to encourage users to compile from it? How is master gonna diverge from tag release between them?
<ArticMine> I agree and lets carefully review the zeromq rfc in the meantime
<moneromooo> I think large things should go to their own branch (ie, ringct). Smaller things can share branches (to dev). Both end up being merged to master when ready.
<fluffypony> binaryFate: no matter what we say people clone and build master
<gingeropolous> **<- this guy
<fluffypony> it doesn't matter how much we encourage building a tagged release
<fluffypony> so we made a decision ages ago that master would be stable
<fluffypony> so that anyone pulling and building master doesn't get some hacky, broken branch
<binaryFate> Ok
<fluffypony> moneromooo: I don't know if we want topic branches in the main repo, but perhaps a more generalised "staging" branch, as long as anything going to that is also PRd to dev
<moneromooo> It can be in any repo.
<smooth> i think not in the main repo is fine
<moneromooo> Like I was hacking on tewinget's branch for a while.
<fluffypony> yeah that's a good point
<luigi1111> +1
<fluffypony> as long as that person is around and accepting PRs it's perfect
<warptangent> then one big PR to dev when it's ready?
<moneromooo> If we go to a dev/master setup, how does dev get merged to master anyway ?
<warptangent> that has worked before, yes
<hyc> yeah, keep main repo relatively clean
<luigi1111> a new feature can get a sort of "lead dev"
<fluffypony> moneromooo: when we release we merge from dev to master and tag master
<luigi1111> and contributers can hack on his repo
<moneromooo> So master becomes a copy of dev at that point ?
<fluffypony> yes
<ArticMine> Yes but a six month cycle could be too long
<smooth> thats a different issue
<smooth> how often to have major releases
<fluffypony> we can do major releases whenever, as long as we have major fork releases every 6 months
<smooth> also are releases time based or feature based
<luigi1111> kinda both ?
<fluffypony> yeah both
<hyc> feature-based is all that makes sense to me
<ArticMine> The merge to master may need to be more frequent than major fork releases
<moneromooo> feature based, but the rolling hard fork also pulls time based I think.
<fluffypony> yes
<binaryFate> Those Dev -> Master merges would happen with what kind of tagging? Point fix? Even more frequent?
<fluffypony> binaryFate: depends on how stable dev is
<luigi1111> so new features thus shouldn't be in dev until they are working properly/ready for release
<luigi1111> because of timed releases
<smooth> time based means that if you have 6 features in progress and one doesn't work in time, you do the release anyway, without the unfinished feture
<fluffypony> smooth, luigi1111: yes, you're both right
<luigi1111> it works as long as the half finished feature isn't partially merged
<luigi1111> or whatever
<fluffypony> the only reason 0MQ got pushed to dev anyway was because oranjuice could no longer work on it, and it was basically done
<fluffypony> but I think let's make it the last time that happens
<fluffypony> then we avoid complication
<warptangent> ok
<moneromooo> tbh I'd be tempted to not really care about people building master. If it's said clearly to use a release if you don't know what you're doing, then it's your problem.
<smooth> i agree with ArticMine that we can have releases sooner than 6 months
<gingeropolous> ah ok. so how the 0MQ happened is not how it will be in future
<binaryFate> Agree with moneromooo
<fluffypony> ok guys we're running overtime, so let's drop this for now, we can pick it up again later
<smooth> i think it is simply unnecessary to merge to master
<smooth> er sorry, commit unreleased stuff to master
<moneromooo> I think one of the problems with 0mq is that oranjuice kinda left
<smooth> any developer can handle getting the latest stuff from someone ele
<smooth> *somewhere else
<moneromooo> So it jsut had to be merged
<ArticMine> Let get back to this question at the next meeting
<fluffypony> ok
<fluffypony> last two things
<smooth> yup
<fluffypony> the first is that we have some major efforts coming up, besides ringCT, and things like epee, the 3 (THREE!!!) different logging systems, and a bunch of unused stuff is going to get in the way
<fluffypony> I'd like us to decide whether we want to keep hacking around things
<moneromooo> Does epee really get in the way ?
<fluffypony> or if we want to spend the effort now dumping this stuff for things that are easier
<hyc> it makes 32bit builds murder. but if we can abandon 32bit, that problem disappears too
<moneromooo> epee does ?
<hyc> yeah
<fluffypony> moneromooo: yes it does; it made QoS an absolute nightmare to do
<fluffypony> and it's still not done properly
<moneromooo> We'd have a replace a lot of stuff.
<ArticMine> 32bit especially on windows is going to be around for a long time
<dEBRUYNE> + TAILS
<moneromooo> And a lot of somewhat low level stuff.
<warptangent> the multiple logging systems situation is strange, but i don't think it's interfered with current work. is there any knowledge on rfree's likelihood of returning?
<fluffypony> warptangent: low to impossible at the moment
<fluffypony> I mean, we can rip and replace the logging stuff with boost::log
<fluffypony> all the console stuff can go ncurses or similar
<smooth> id be more in favor of specific items like that, done on feature branch
<fluffypony> and the wire protocol can go ZMTP, since we have a 0MQ dep anyway
<fluffypony> eventually we'll get to a point where we're no longer reliant on epee
<moneromooo> I agree with the bit by bit approach.
<warptangent> that sounds manageable
<fluffypony> also then we'll actually have usable Doxygen docs
<smooth> the thing to bear in mind is this has virtually zero end user benefit, if not actually zero
<fluffypony> yes
<fluffypony> on the flip side, we can plug the GUI in via 0MQ instead of monero-as-a-library
<moneromooo> Well, the benefit is said to be for 32 bit users.
<fluffypony> so we have a shortcut of sorts there
<fluffypony> (in terms of users clamouring for stuff)
<fluffypony> moneromooo: and long-term viability
<fluffypony> we've had potential contributors ask for an architectural doc for the code, and get turned off when there isn't one
<fluffypony> so there's scope to slowly bring the codebase in line
<smooth> i dont believe there is anything about the current code that precludes a GUI. After all, BBR has one with basically the same code.
<hyc> huh.. contributors that are turned off so easily ... I wouldn't expect much use out of them if they stayed
<moneromooo> I was kinda thinking that too...
<fluffypony> I guess, but tbh it does make the project seem significantly less mature
<fluffypony> which I guess is fair, it's not even 2 years old
<gingeropolous> less hurdles, more good
<smooth> it is somewhat hard to come up to speed with the code, i would agree with that
<fluffypony> alright
<fluffypony> last thing so we can wrap up
<fluffypony> I just wanted to deeply thank everyone who has contributed and who continues to contribute to Monero development, whether it is Monero's core, the website, any other peripheral projects
<fluffypony> both on behalf of the core team, and on behalf of the community
<fluffypony> you all do an amazing job, and we've done a truckload of work in 2014 and 2015
<fluffypony> so here's to an amazing 2016
<gingeropolous> hear hear! thank you fluffypony for herding the cats so good
<Bassica> hear hear!
<xmrpromotions> thank you!
<ArticMine> Thanks for all the good work
<fluffypony> thus concludes the first meeting, next one in two weeks
<warptangent> thanks fluffypony
<luigi1111> thanks
<binaryFate> Thanks to you fluffy (enjoy that wine)! Thanks to all of you, awesome community.
<dEBRUYNE> Thanks fluffypony!
<hyc> **<glug> thanks all
<Infinite_Jest> is there a buffet?
<fluffypony> Infinite_Jest: snacks will be served in The Grand Ballroom in 15 mins
<Infinite_Jest> ok great
but seriously thanks!
<cardboardoranges> thanks fluffy
