223b1ba7d90509a47ea07af46f4b9c3b8efbc9f8 doc: Use CONFIG_SITE instead of --prefix (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
The current examples of `--prefix=...` option usage to point `configure` script to appropriate `depends` directory is not [standard](https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Directory-Variables.html). This causes some [confusion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16691) and a bit of inconvenience.
Consider a CentOS 7 32 bit system. Packages `libdb4-devel`, `libdb4-cxx-devel`, `miniupnpc-devel` and `zeromq-devel` are unavailable from repos. After recommended build with depends:
```
cd depends
make
cd ..
./autogen.sh
./configure --prefix=$PWD/depends/i686-pc-linux-gnu
make
```
a user is unable to `make install` compiled binaries neither locally (to `~/.local`) nor system-wide (to `/usr/local`) as `--prefix` is set already.
Meanwhile, the standard approach with using [`config.site`](https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/config_002esite.html) files allows both possibilities:
```
cd depends
make
cd ..
./autogen.sh
CONFIG_SITE=$PWD/depends/i686-pc-linux-gnu/share/config.site ./configure --prefix ~/.local
make
make install
```
or
```
CONFIG_SITE=$PWD/depends/i686-pc-linux-gnu/share/config.site ./configure
make
sudo make install # install to /usr/local
```
Moreover, this approach is used in [Gitian descriptors](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/gitian-descriptors) already.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 223b1ba7d90509a47ea07af46f4b9c3b8efbc9f8: patch looks correct
fanquake:
ACK 223b1ba7d90509a47ea07af46f4b9c3b8efbc9f8
Tree-SHA512: 46d97924f0fc7e95ee4566737cf7c2ae805ca500e5c49af9aa99ecc3acede4b00329bc727a110aa1b62618dfbf5d1ca2234e736f16fbdf96d6ece5f821712f54
20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364 rpc: Return block time in getblockchaininfo (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Return tip time in `getblockchaininfo`, for some use cases this can save a call to `getblock`.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
theStack:
re-ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
0xB10C:
ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
kristapsk:
ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
Zero-1729:
re-ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
Tree-SHA512: 29a920cfff1ef53e0af601c3f93f8f9171f3be47fc84b0fa293cb865b824976e8c1510b17b27d17daf0b8e658dd77d9dc388373395f0919fc4a23cd5019642d5
d51f0fa4b7b19281efe65aacf414845c661d0a13 doc: add release notes for 26896 (fanquake)
2b248798d96f794db08b7725730b5fb4e00b9b10 build: remove --enable-upnp-default from configure (fanquake)
02f5a5e7b5fd7ba35e407d4409202a0e0fed003c build: remove --enable-natpmp-default from configure (fanquake)
25a0e8ba0b31d8bd265df0589fe49241a60d0fc2 Remove configure-time setting of DEFAULT_UPNP (fanquake)
06562e5fa771dab275a9cab4914cd64d961a52bc Remove configure-time setting of DEFAULT_NATPMP (fanquake)
Pull request description:
This PR removes the `--enable-upnp-default` and `--enable-natpmp-default` options from configure.
It's odd to me that we maintain configure-time options for setting the default port-forwarding runtime state (but no other similar options), and I'm not sure what use-case it satisfies, that can't be achieved by multiple other means. I also doubt that we'll ever restart using these in release builds, or turning on any of this by default.
I think the only scenario these options would be used is when you want to compile your own binaries (we don't use them in Guix), with port-forwarding on by default, but otherwise can't or don't want to use a `.conf` file, can't or don't want to pass command line options at runtime, and also don't want to modify the source code?
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK d51f0fa4b7b19281efe65aacf414845c661d0a13, rebased and comments have been addressed since my recent [review](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26896#pullrequestreview-1273910740).
TheCharlatan:
ACK d51f0fa4b7b19281efe65aacf414845c661d0a13
Tree-SHA512: 481decd8bddd8b03b7319591e3acf189f7b6b96c9a9a8c5bc1a3f8ec00d0b8f9b52d2f5c28a298a2ec947cfe9611cfd184e393ccb2e4e21bfce86ca7d4de60d3
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Our [Release Process document](doc/release-process.md) is not exactly
matched with our [template
issue](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5694) that created by
copy-paste from previous release.
For the next release just copy test from this document to new issue
## What was done?
[Release Process document](doc/release-process.md) is updated to match
with our real release process.
This document has also detailed instructions for many steps (in compare
to the issue that we use now which is more checklist) to make releasing
process easier for all participant.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Tested on air by 2 last released: v19, v20:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5694
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## What was done?
Fixes some inaccuracies for release notes for v20.0.0, for v19.2.0.
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## What was done?
Fixes some inaccuracies for release notes for v20.0.0, for v19.2.0.
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Docs was slightly incorrect after moving to guix
## What was done?
fixed docs
## How Has This Been Tested?
Did notarization :)
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
NOTE: this PR is for v20.x branch, to be merged as the last one before
v20 release.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
`./contrib/devtools/gen-manpages.sh` and drop `rc2` and `dirty` suffixes
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fix Dash Core version in i2p.md and update list of nodes in tor.md (we
do not support v2 tor anymore).
## What was done?
ran a node with `-onlynet=oinion` and picked 8 nodes
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/expedite-60-20-20-reallocation
## What was done?
Activates changers brought in #5588 on `v20` hard fork instead of
`mn_rr`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
Again, Testnet sync is broken
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
When expecting a hard fork, we manually calculate activation heights.
## What was done?
Returning expected activation height for BIP9 softporks in `locked_in`
status in `getblockchaininfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20
## What was done?
Once Masternode Reward Location Reallocation activates:
- Treasury is bumped to 20% of block subsidy.
- Block reward shares are immediately set to 75% for MN and 25% miners.
(Previous reallocation periods are dropped)
MN reward share should be 75% of block reward in order to represent 60%
of the block subsidy. (according to the proposal)
- `governancebudget` is returned from `getgovernanceinfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`block_reward_reallocation_tests`
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
docs: add release notes for 5342
## How Has This Been Tested?
N/A
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: Odysseas Gabrielides <odysseas.gabrielides@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5121.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5493
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5262.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5525.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
With #5525 , MNs shouldn't use Sentinel anymore.
## What was done?
In order to force them to remove Sentinel:
- `gobject submit` RPC won't accept triggers anymore.
- `gobject vote-conf` RPC isn't available anymore.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_governance.py` and `feature_governance_object.py`
## Breaking Changes
Normally, only Sentinel should be broken.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
808ef36b89ea9ce72116bbd7ee479b984367dc60 [doc] Update thread information in developer docs (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
- DumpAddresses thread was removed in #5964
- Shutdown thread was removed in #5679
- Add new threads (scheduler, RPC worker, indexer, tor control)
- Small changes to documentation of other threads
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 808ef36b89
hebasto:
ACK 808ef36b89ea9ce72116bbd7ee479b984367dc60.
Tree-SHA512: 85b6ace7bcc4dee030c63461bef1ded1a9581d4fa249c59f6fcd5d33d89c4357a6b8b35888ce0960f276d397b5e38a21e6c5d4b7b79544827a28c950e097b36d
fab633d2dbfed1efcc3a02061685d56327ae51fd doc: Update fuzzing docs for afl-clang-lto (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Update the docs to default to `afl-clang-lto`. The afl-gcc (and other afl legacy fuzz engines) are still supported, though discouraged.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK fab633d2dbfed1efcc3a02061685d56327ae51fd - seems to work for me. Compiled and ran some fuzzers using Clang 11 on Bionic. Set `llvm-config` so that `clang-11` would be used over `clang` (10).
jarolrod:
ACK fab633d2dbfed1efcc3a02061685d56327ae51fd, tested on Ubuntu Focal
Tree-SHA512: 3d1969c167bea45a9d691f3b757f51213d550c9c1b895bed1fcf3c2f7345791787cfb13c376291b94eb3181caf4ae3126f4d01c7cebda7b2bb1c40a1294e9a68
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Renaming of all classes/variables/functions/rpcs from `hpmn` to `evo`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
All unit and func tests are passing.
Sync of Testnet.
## Breaking Changes
All protx RPCs ending with `_hpmn` were converted to `_evo`.
`_hpmn` RPCs are now deprecated.
Although, they can still be enabled by adding `-deprecatedrpc=hpmn`.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Added the filter `hpmn` for both `masternodelist` and `protx list` rpcs.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Calling this RPC on Testnet.
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
@ogabrielides @kittywhiskers I somehow failed to add you guys to the
list of v19.2 contributors 🙈 sorry!
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
25dac9fa65243ca8db02df22f484039c08114401 doc: add release notes for explicit fee estimators and bumpfee change (Karl-Johan Alm)
05227a35545d7656450874b3668bf418c73813fb tests for bumpfee / estimate_modes (Karl-Johan Alm)
3404c1b753432c4859a4ca245f01c240610a00cb policy: optional FeeEstimateMode param to CFeeRate::ToString (Karl-Johan Alm)
6fcf4484302d13bd7739b617470d8c8e31974908 rpc/wallet: add two explicit modes to estimate_mode (Karl-Johan Alm)
b188d80c2de9ebb114da5ceea78baa46bde7dff6 MOVEONLY: Make FeeEstimateMode available to CFeeRate (Karl-Johan Alm)
5d1a411eb12fc700804ffe5d6e205234d30edd5f fees: add FeeModes doc helper function (Karl-Johan Alm)
91f6d2bc8ff4d4cd1b86daa370ec9d2d9662394d rpc/wallet: add conf_target as alias to confTarget in bumpfee (Karl-Johan Alm)
69158b41fc488e4f220559da17a475eff5923a95 added CURRENCY_ATOM to express minimum indivisible unit (Karl-Johan Alm)
Pull request description:
This lets users pick their own fees when using `sendtoaddress`/`sendmany` if they prefer this over the estimators.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-utACK 25dac9fa65: rebased, more fancy C++,
jonatack:
ACK 25dac9fa65243ca8db02df2 I think this should be merged after all this time, even though it looks to me like there are needed follow-ups, fixes and test coverage to be added (see further down), which I don't mind helping out with, if wanted.
fjahr:
Code review ACK 25dac9fa65243ca8db02df22f484039c08114401
Tree-SHA512: f31177e6cabf3187a43cdfe93477144f8e8385c7344613743cbbd16e8490d53ff5144aec7b9de6c9a65eb855b55e0f99d7f164dee4b6bf3cfea4dce51cf11d33
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of Randomness Beacon Part 3.
Starting from v20 activation fork, members for quorums are sorted using
(if available) the best CL signature found in Coinbase.
If no CL signature is present yet, then the usual way is used (By using
Blockhash instead)
The actual new way to shuffle is already implemented in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5366.
SPV clients also need to calculate members, but they only know block
headers.
Since Coinbase is in the actual block, then they lack the required
information to correctly calculate quorum members.
## What was done?
- Message `MNLISTIDFF` is enriched with a new field `quorumsCLSigs`.
This field holds the Chainlock Signature required for each set of
indexes corresponding to quorums in field `newQuorums`.
- Protocol version has been bumped to `70230`.
- Clients with protocol version greater or equal to `70230` will receive
the new field `quorumsCLSigs`.
- The same field is returned in `protx diff` RPC.
Note:
- Field `quorumsCLSigs` will populated only after v20 activation
- If for one or more quorums, no non-null CL sig was found in CbTx then
a null signature is returned in `quorumsCLSigs`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Functional test mininode's protocol version was bumped to `70230`.
- `feature_llmq_rotation.py` checks that `quorumsCLSigs` match in both
P2P and RPC messages.
## Breaking Changes
No
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
