13:53:20 <selsta> https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/6376 needs a review
16:45:30 <rehrar> Snipa, you around?
16:46:04 <rehrar> We can do a small meeting in 15? Just a recap of this last release.
17:03:17 <ErCiccione[m]> So, meeting? there is also next cli/daemon release to talk about afaik
17:03:30 <hyc> I'm here if we want a meeting
17:03:33 <rbrunner> Here
17:03:55 * moneromooo mooos
17:03:55 <selsta> hi
17:04:38 <selsta> here is a list of PRs for the next release: https://paste.debian.net/hidden/7f5d299c/
17:04:53 <selsta> AFAIK all are reviewed, 6376 is in the process of getting reviewed
17:06:42 <selsta> after this release we would start working on v0.15.1.0 from master branch
17:06:47 <ErCiccione[m]> I think we can also add 6312
17:06:59 <selsta> which will include D++ and maybe the ASM speedups if everything gets reviewed.
17:07:05 <ErCiccione[m]> so we have some more strings translated and i can unlock the CLI on weblate
17:07:22 <selsta> you have to PR against v0.15 branch
17:07:57 <rbrunner> So this a release "small and fast", and therefore including only a minimum, right?
17:08:03 <selsta> yes
17:08:22 <ErCiccione[m]> ah ok. I thought we were releasing from master
17:08:54 <ErCiccione[m]> it's not that important to have 5312 in this release, more important to have it merged soon
17:08:55 <selsta> no, v0.15.1.0 will be from master, v0.15.0.5 from release-v0.15
17:09:26 <ErCiccione[m]> Ah ok. Got it now
17:10:03 <selsta> v0.15.0.4 was first release without fluffy, it went quite well
17:10:18 <selsta> but we are still fighting a bit with static Qt builds
17:11:13 <ErCiccione[m]> what's the timeline for 0.15.1.0?
17:11:28 <selsta> question for the meeting: does it make sense to continue keeping CLI and GUI in sync with version numbers?
17:11:49 <hyc> they're not perfectly in sync right now
17:11:50 <moneromooo> We did not keep them in sync.
17:11:55 <hyc> CLI is behind GUI
17:12:14 <selsta> they kinda are in sync, just CLI releases where only GUI stuff gets changed get skipped
17:12:28 <hyc> but IMO yes, we should keep them close, since the GUI includes the CLI
17:12:29 <selsta> but now CLI goes from .0.1 to 0.5 to keep in sync with GUI
17:12:31 <moneromooo> They're *mostly* in sync because we release roughly at the same time.
17:12:41 <rbrunner> If no sync I think completely different version numbers would be an idea, to avoid confusion.
17:12:55 <ErCiccione[m]> IIRC GUI folks wanted to release more often
17:13:07 <rbrunner> "GUI Version 1.2, based on Monero Core 15.1.0.0"
17:13:14 <hyc> ugh
17:13:21 <hyc> keep major version numbers in sync
17:13:39 <selsta> the current system works ok so we don’t have to change it
17:13:41 <moneromooo> And minor, since it's the one that gets bumped on forks.
17:13:42 <hyc> or, use the same version numbers as are feature-compatible
17:13:45 <selsta> just maybe if someone has a better idea
17:14:20 <hyc> I think current scheme ain't broke, don't fix it
17:14:39 <rbrunner> It's maybe a little broken because it confuses some people ...
17:14:44 <rbrunner> If not in perfect sync
17:15:19 <selsta> it will never be in perfect sync unless we release CLI updates with no changes :P
17:15:28 <hyc> people should be smart enough to know that X.x.x.y and X.x.x.z are only a minor difference
17:15:34 <selsta> yep
17:15:38 <ErCiccione[m]> agree
17:16:07 <moneromooo> Minor can include security fixes here. It's sensible to ask for confirmation I guess.
17:16:09 <selsta> ErCiccione[m]: timeline for v0.15.1.0: ~1 month
17:16:26 <hyc> security fixes that we don't also release in CLI?
17:16:31 <hyc> seems unlikely
17:16:39 <ErCiccione[m]> Thanks selsta
17:16:53 <selsta> I think it will need good testing if we branch from master
17:17:07 <moneromooo> Minor version bumps can include security fixes in the CLI tools. It's sensible to ask for confirmation that the version you have is really the latest one I guess.
17:17:46 <ErCiccione[m]> selsta: Last time we managed to have a proper code freeze. If we keep it that way we should be fine IMHO
17:19:04 <rbrunner> Well, with 0.15.1 in about 1 month, and a code freeze, poor snipa will have to merge day and night
17:19:07 <ErCiccione[m]> Not really related, but i think a clarification from core about hard forks it's needed. It's still not clear to me if we are keeping the 6 months schedule, if we are going to 9 months HF, or even 1 year.
17:19:11 <hyc> if you download a GUI release you get a CLI bundled in. why would you think they are not up to date with each other?
17:20:54 <hyc> ErCiccione[m]: latest I heard is we continue to release every 6 months, but the hardfork may be skipped if we have no consensus changes to push
17:21:43 <selsta> rbrunner: We also have luigi :D
17:21:52 <rbrunner> Ah, for the GUI then
17:22:19 <rbrunner> But I think a lot is waiting anyway, right?
17:22:38 <ErCiccione[m]> hyc: Yeah but i think we need some official statement or something. Last time we released after 9 months IIRC
17:23:56 <ErCiccione[m]> So, what's the official take? anybody from core around? fluffypony binaryfate articmine luigi1111
17:24:25 <hyc> what last time, what 9 months?
17:24:27 <selsta> I like the just work on things and fork when necessary approach. Having a month specific schedule is difficult for OSS.
17:24:33 <moneromooo> Ask binarypony1111.
17:26:39 <ErCiccione[m]> hyc: last hard fork happened after 9 months, but there was no release after 6. the initial idea was to release anyway after 6 months to keep the schedule, but that didn't really happen and there were so many discussions about it in the meantime, that i don't know where we stand now.
17:27:07 <hyc> last hardfork, November 30?
17:27:13 <moneromooo> IMHO we stand where selsa just said :)
17:27:48 <moneromooo> Aim, but don't try to shoehorn if you see you can't hit the aimed region.
17:27:50 <ErCiccione[m]> sorry no, i menat the one before. I'm getting confused now
17:28:26 <rbrunner> Is any pressing consensus change waiting anywhere?
17:28:29 <hyc> I think this question is moot. We had one off-schedule release but we've been on track.
17:28:53 <moneromooo> CLSAG :D
17:29:08 <moneromooo> But it's getting kicked in the butt again :(
17:29:13 <rbrunner> Ready to go?
17:29:22 <moneromooo> AFAIK yes.
17:29:30 <hyc> I thought CLSAG won't go until there's been a paid formal audit
17:29:33 <rbrunner> You mean some issues surfaced lately?
17:29:35 <moneromooo> Well, I'd have to bump the fork checks for 13 instead of 12.
17:29:53 <moneromooo> Yes. And no audit is anywhere near.
17:29:56 <ErCiccione[m]> alright, maybe i have my timings wrong
17:30:04 <moneromooo> One company said they could do it.
17:30:22 <rbrunner> They don't happen from themselves in any case. Maybe mount some drive ...
17:32:00 <selsta> AFAIK MRL does not want to do an audit for COI reasons (?)
17:32:08 <selsta> so now nothing is happening
17:32:19 <selsta> unless someone else organizes one
17:32:45 <rbrunner> What is "COI"?
17:32:50 <hyc> I don't understand the conflict
17:33:13 <moneromooo> Conflict of interest.
17:33:20 <rbrunner> Ah, thanks
17:33:23 <selsta> just forwarding what I read in #monero-research-lab
17:33:46 <luigi1111> i think we should tall about a new schedule. or just skip this fork and consider it a talk about a new schedule
17:33:46 <selsta> sgp_ knows more maybe and sarang
17:34:57 <ErCiccione[m]> alright than i wasn't crazy. I remember the discussion about changing schedule happening
17:35:03 <hyc> is dandelion++ going to be in this release? will v0.15.0 nodes simply broadcast any stem-phase txns they receive?
17:35:28 <rbrunner> I am quite sure it's fully interoperable
17:35:34 <selsta> no D++ will be included with v0.15.1.0
17:35:43 <hyc> ok
17:35:44 <selsta> next release will be v0.15.0.5
17:35:50 <selsta> and we will tag tomorrow or do
17:35:53 <selsta> so*
17:36:14 <hyc> sounds fine
17:36:40 <selsta> once moo is happy with 6375
17:38:53 <nioc> so how do we get CLSAG audited
17:39:29 <hyc> probably the same way we got randomX audited. somebody solicits statements of work from auditing companies
17:39:40 <hyc> and then we start a CCS to pay for the audits
17:39:59 <selsta> AFAIK there is still 1 offer for $15k
17:40:09 <selsta> code and math review
17:40:10 <nioc> that has been done and we have 1 company that will do both the math and implementation
17:40:51 <hyc> how many do we think are needed?
17:41:12 <selsta> 1
17:41:14 <nioc> I asked that question at last MRL meeting
17:42:01 <nioc> no answer but I like selsta's answer :)
17:42:42 <selsta> the submitted CLSAG somewhere and it got reviews, so we should also consider that
17:42:47 <selsta> they*
17:43:15 <selsta> don’t know the exact scientific wording :)
17:43:22 <selsta> journal?
17:43:56 <nioc> the math they are comfortable with, more a matter of implementation
17:44:25 <selsta> moneromooo is CLSAG a large  code change? how many audits would you prefer?
17:46:51 <moneromooo> Depends what you call large... sarang says it's conceptually simple really.
17:47:00 * moneromooo goes check the diffs
17:47:24 <selsta> would you be comfortable with 1 audit?
17:47:29 <moneromooo> +580 lines. Yes.
17:47:40 <moneromooo> But it's not me that has to be comfortable :)
17:47:57 <moneromooo> And +1k lines for the plugging into monero :o
17:48:22 <moneromooo> OK, two thirds of that is tests.
17:49:11 <UkoeHB_> Ah yes, there might be some consensus changes related to minimum fee in an upcoming hardfork. ArticMine is researching an idea afaik (there is also my idea on research-lab issues)
17:51:32 <selsta> unless sarang suraeNoether or someone else speaks up against 1 audit I think we should go with one
17:52:03 <UkoeHB_> 1 audit seems good to me, clsag isn't too crazy
17:52:05 <selsta> UkoeHB_: ok so we would have CLSAG + minimum fee changes
17:52:30 <moneromooo> Well, the audit itself would take some time, presumably. Even if it started asap.
17:52:44 <moneromooo> But we could push any fork, also presumably...
17:53:25 <TinusMars> hey, don't want to bother you guys but could someone confirm if the fingerprint of binaryfate's GPG key is 81AC 591F E9C4 B65C 5806 AFC3 F0AF 4D46 2A0B DF92?
17:53:41 <UkoeHB_> Min fee changes only really matter with higher tx volume, and if multisig is a lot more advanced, so no big rush there imo
17:53:54 <selsta> TinusMars: yes
17:54:01 <TinusMars> thanks
17:55:33 <moneromooo> It should be in the monero repo, where it was checked before being included.
17:59:48 <ErCiccione[m]> The updated guide with the updated fingerprint was also merged. Waiting for getmonero to be updated https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/monero-site/-/merge_requests/1242
18:00:49 <ErCiccione[m]> meeting over or there is something else to talk about?
18:06:11 <selsta> yep meeting over
18:46:31 <TrasherDK> 8-)Dandelion++ test?
22:15:58 <Snipa> SOunds like lots of merges to review.  Y'all still have meetings way too early in the day for me on the weekends. :P  Night owl, west-coast US so my timings are generally all off.
22:18:59 <moneromooo> selsta: the net logs PRs are good to go.
22:19:07 <selsta> ok nice
22:21:44 <selsta> merge list for release-v0.15 branch: https://paste.debian.net/hidden/7f5d299c/
23:52:47 <selsta> ^ Snipa luigi1111, whoever of you has time first. Would be nice to get the v0.15.0.5 tag out in the next days. ty