Development meeting held @ 3PM UTC in grincoin#general channel on Keybase. Meeting lasted ~ 20 min.
Notes are truncated, and conversations sorted based on topic and not always chronological. Quotes are edited for brevity and clarity, and not always exact.
Community attendance:
- antiochp
- cekickafa
- defistaker
- jaspervdm
- joltz
- lehnberg
- phyro
- quentinlesceller
- tromp
- vegycslol
(apologies if I missed someone - submit a PR or contact @lehnberg to add)
The proposed agenda was reviewed and accepted with the QA team follow up removed as it was no longer relevant.
- lehnberg: Should we wrap up quickly and then take a quick look at 5.0.0 planning instead?
- 👍: antiochp, joltz, jaspervdm, defistaker, defistaker
-
lehnberg: I've been able to reach out to the last ones I had outstanding, all aside from f2pool. If anyone has a contact, hit me up in the dms. Not been receiving much of a response from people, so I wouldn't expect much in terms of engineering effort being spent on this transition.
- joltz: Yes like pulling teeth to get more than a canned response in most cases. :/
-
lehnberg: More likely it seems like they'd either:
- a) de-list us
- b) find a workaround to continue using https. Since some wallets are likely to continue supporting https, I reckon it's going to be a bit of a mess.
I don't really know if I have many thoughts to contribute on this matter. I understand the position both of exchanges and mining pools. And also those of wallets that don't want to stop supporting something their users are using. At the same time, I also see the need for us to push towards slatepack.
- joltz: It will take some time. I hope as we get new listings and new wallets they will be using slatepack primarily. It may just take a while for the existing services and wallets to transItion.
- phyro: I don't know what else could be done tbh. They had time to transition and it would be in the interest of everyone to switch.
- joltz: There is at least now a robust, privacy preserving and stable alternative to http(s) which was the primary goal I think.
- antiochp: 👍 and a clear direction to push people in.
- 👍: joltz, cekickafa
- lehnberg: In terms of rfcs, it's the http(s) one that's pressing. Not seen or heard from yeast in quite a while now. What should we do here?
- joltz: Did the implementation of that get reassigned?
- lehnberg: Kinda flagged it last dev meeting to @jaspervdm that it might end up happening. But don't think we actually reassigned anything.
- jaspervdm: Not formally, but we can do that today if we want.
- joltz: Don't you have a pretty big load already @jaspervdm? Don't want to overload if it will get in the way of other work you are doing. Though I think the changes are fairly minimal.
- jaspervdm: Yes, I think its doable with the amount of changes required for this one.
- 👍: joltz, phyro
- joltz: I'll be available to help in any capacity you need there, review etc. I could prob swing it but would take some time to catch up with current state of wallet impl.
- jaspervdm: Ill have a pr up by the end of the week.
- 🚀: joltz, antiochp, quentinlesceller, phyro
- jaspervdm: Pretty much done, mod changes that antioch suggested and a change in bitmap segment serialization we discussed in the dev channel last week. Would appreciate more eyes on the text.
- lehnberg: I'll take a look.
- jaspervdm: Ideally we start the fcp next week after the dev meeting, if you guys agree.
- joltz: 👍 will give it a review this week.
- tromp: I'll have a look at pibd RFC as well.
- jaspervdm: Unfortunately it was not really possible to get this one finalized sooner, working on the actual impl gave us a lot of insights that changed technical details.
- 👍: joltz, antiochp, quentinlesceller
None.
Meeting adjourned.