3518 entries in 0.703s
mod6: ok, im gotta try to
patch up this thing on openbsd and see if i can get anywhere.
mod6: i've got a script to pull archives, verify and
patch on Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD. Will only compile it on Linux since we're not quite there yet on *BSD, give it a try, let me know how it goes:
nubbins`: seems easy enough to write a
patch that changes version string
jurov: BingoBoingo: depends on the
patch ascii_field: redhat
patch << i can't help but think that this is a 'wait, there was dioxin in my cyanide pill!111!' situation.
danielpbarron: i think i tried the portatronic
patch first and it didn't work
danielpbarron: but just to clarify, i'm supposed to
patch with the portatronic thing after the chicken etc.. patches?
punkman: (on debian wheezy, rev_bump
patch)
kakobrekla: have it built in, but optionally as separate
patch?
mod6: well, but also, i like i was saying, it's inconsistant. because TomServo has checkpoints included and he got through the gauntlet, and I did as well lastweek before the version
patch.
punkman: just sent a
patch to the list, wonder if it'll go through
mod6: yeah, i wanna re-iterate here, all of the wedging issues ben and I had were /with/ checkpoints included. if we apply the rm_checkpoints
patch, no longer a problem.
mod6: i've got mutiple good v0.5.3 chains saved, but ... just was regression testing to ensure full sync with the v0.5.3.1
patch before release sign & cut
mod6: but then i applied the rm_checkpoints
patch and then it continued on np.
ben_vulpes: <asciilifeform> [] ben_vulpes, mircea_popescu: am i the only one who wonders why 1) checking hashes, inside a pgp-signed script, when
patch sigs also are checked 2) patches & their hashes, sigs, listed explicitly, instead of iterating over directory << consider it an excess of paranoia
assbot: Logged on 30-01-2015 05:09:29; asciilifeform: i just began live-fire test of the first really dangerous
patch mod6: just make /sure/ to
patch in the specified order.
mod6: right now, i gotta figure out how to
patch the test servers
mod6: YOu'll just have to
patch it by hand.
decimation: asciilifeform: did you have to
patch gcc to fix the bug you posted the other day?
mod6: asciilifeform: sweet. what'd ya have to
patch?
mod6: you know, before I did any of that, i thought about doing a detached sig, but then i wondered if something really funky would happen, like it would get somehow added to the
patch-list automagically, and it doesn't belong there either.
mod6: - --verify chicken/bitcoin-asciilifeform.1.
patch.sig
nubbins`: alf, you seem like the kind of guy who would, in another life, have a massive modular synthesizer in your basement,
patch cables and eurorack modules all over the place
ben_vulpes: mkay, well i published a
patch that bumps to 0.5.3.1, don't know if you saw that
ben_vulpes: it's amusing to watch everyone manually
patch the closed source turdball to cope with each successive os x upgrade
mod6: here's a script that will build everything without the rm_checkpoints
patch, with exception to the version number update:
mod6: and so should you. I'll be tabling that, updating the "
Patch guide" and pulling the tarball with that
patch down from the website as soon as my other vm hits current block.
mod6: in my most recent regression tests ( this past week, i've been leaving out the rm_checkpoints
patch )
mod6: cool. in this case, im running v0.5.3[base]+patches{1,rm_rf_upnp,2,3,4,6(db_config),unreleased-version-update-
patch}
assbot: Logged on 21-01-2015 02:59:39; Luke-Jr: I think the db_config
patch may explain why it works, but could be potentially inadequate for the current consensus rules
ben_vulpes: gavinandresen: i'm pointing out that the only acceptable
patch for wallets is total removal.
gavinandresen: ben_vulpes: “patches welcome” Alex Morcos has a
patch pending with better fee estimation code.
thestringpuller: i think asciilifeform submitted
patch to gut all of it out.
ben_vulpes: <Luke-Jr> [] not sure why this
patch is reducing set_lg_max.. << lol i love the stream of consciousness as Luke-Jr reads through source
nubbins`: it's all in easily-digestible chunks, no sweat to eyeball each
patch & fully understand what's going on
Luke-Jr: not sure why this
patch is reducing set_lg_max..
Luke-Jr: I think the db_config
patch may explain why it works, but could be potentially inadequate for the current consensus rules
☟︎ Luke-Jr: which
patch contains the post-0.5.3 hardforks?
mod6: Well, that's what there is: the v0.5.3 base +
patch files.
ben_vulpes: you might consider using the
patch names as a handle
ben_vulpes: or to say, run an lxr instance for each successive
patch?
mod6: so there was a check in 0.5.3 that requires checkpoints for this, which i removed in the rm_checkpoints
patch mod6: pulls all the
patch packages, checks the hashes, checks the signatures.
mod6: asciilifeform: ah ok. hmm. well, too late to go back and edit the 1st
patch. but i guess you can submit another that resolves that issue.
mod6: if persons submitting patches do not have L2 trust with assbot they may be submitted directly to me, and I will review. and will probably have to sponsor said
patch myself.
joecool: mod6: are there plans to
patch things like change predictability?
BingoBoingo: <joecool> mod6: solid, i'll open a bug to get it included in gentoo (and troll Luke-Jr) << He prolly has a historical version of his
patch set s should be fine with it.
mod6: I have written a guide on how to
patch the reference implementation. is that one too complex?
mircea_popescu: <assbot> Logged on 06-12-2014 02:50:54; decimation: apparently they kicked the guy off the project because of his refusal to commit a pronoun
patch << well he wasn't being paid, so technically they uh.
assbot: Logged on 06-12-2014 02:50:54; decimation: apparently they kicked the guy off the project because of his refusal to commit a pronoun
patch mod6: here's a snippit of what my .bitcoin/database dir looks like with the BDB
patch compiled in:
mod6: I was able to get upto the current block 2 different times with patches 1->5 (which includes ascii's patches, ben's
patch, and my removal of checkpoints) with two seperate bdb configs. The first one just changed this: dbenv.set_lk_max_locks(40000); But ended up with a huge amount of BDB tx log files.
mod6: This month I've been doing testing with the patched version of the reference implementation. Main object here is to get from genesis block to current block, while being able to get past the wedge block 252450. I was able to do that, but not only did we test with ascii's patches and ben's UPNP
patch, I added a
patch (
http://dpaste.com/1G3XY64) that removes the checkpoints, and a
patch (
http://dpaste.com/1K5M2TN) to configure BDB so the R.I. won't
undata: you decided your
patch was a sensible default, though the "core devs" did not
adlai: Luke-Jr: why not make a
patch that lets people dynamically enter filters into a running, compiled, program?
adlai: probably the kind that doesn't like when
patch names aren't consistent across package versions :)
Luke-Jr: so they can just modify the
patch and drop it in /etc
Luke-Jr: I guess you could build the array at startup, but it's not really much easier to modify bitcoin.conf than to modify the
patch fluffypony: rithm: a black labrador wipes it's bum on a dirty
patch of grass
decimation: apparently they kicked the guy off the project because of his refusal to commit a pronoun
patch ☟︎ jurov: oh mod6 i forgot to suggest to send it as "
patch" so that people can just add signatures.. nm, i'll add it there somehow