## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Remove dash-qt from docker images; save ~41MB
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't
## Breaking Changes
I guess in theory someone could've been relying on dash-qt from docker 🤷
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] 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
`instantlock` and `chainlock` are broken in `getspecialtxes`
kudos to @thephez for finding the issue
## What was done?
pass the hash and also rename the variable to self-describing
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `getspecialtxes` on a node with and without the patch
## Breaking Changes
`instantlock` and `chainlock` will show actual values and not just
`false` all the time now (not sure if that qualifies for "breaking"
though)
## 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
Once Platform is live, there could be an edge case where the CL could
arrive to an EvoNode faster through Platform quorum than regular P2P
propagation.
## What was done?
This PR introduces a new RPC `submitchainlock` with the following 3
mandatory parameters:
- `blockHash`, `signature` and `height`.
Besides some basic tests:
- If the block is unknown then the RPC returns an error (could happen if
the node is stucked)
- If the signature is not verified then the RPC return an error.
- If the node already has this CL, the RPC returns true.
- If the node doesn't have this CL, it inserts it, broadcast it through
the inv system and return true.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py` was modified with the following scenario:
1. node0 is isolated from the rest of the network
2. node1 mines a new block and waits for CL
3. Make sure node0 doesn't know the new block/CL (by checking
`getbestchainlock()`)
4. CL is submitted via the new RPC on node0
5. checking `getbestchainlock()` and make sure the CL was processed +
'known_block' is false
6. reconnect node0
## Breaking Changes
no
## 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
- [ ] 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>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
1ea11e10acd60807a06adea5ecf553974a1b0346 doc: link to managing-wallets from doc readme (fanquake)
Pull request description:
This was forgotten in #22523.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 1ea11e10acd60807a06adea5ecf553974a1b0346
jarolrod:
ACK 1ea11e10acd60807a06adea5ecf553974a1b0346
Tree-SHA512: b82664b282cc0fe733b752c011621593df0f846d2188f12dbc5fedb7ffed2bd161293ce2a369ca973926030795b5f7acde7a1cbf5e337042a6f665906069c656
ce4e90629ed70f4d45906d7e79563b2f7ad6493e Document about wallet backup and restoration (lsilva01)
Pull request description:
This PR adds a document about backing up and restoring the Bitcoin Core wallet as suggested in the issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20149 .
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
re-ACK ce4e90629ed70f4d45906d7e79563b2f7ad6493e
prayank23:
reACK ce4e90629e
meshcollider:
re-ACK ce4e90629ed70f4d45906d7e79563b2f7ad6493e
Tree-SHA512: 68881fc1d81ff27cb59b891e6d422e303844a751afd9f4699f7ae505f204452afe9496c9be915ba94a7045f3cf3eaeb2af0e42ff2a12b4c77ef1f71a9de4faad
ab9c34237ab7b056394e0bd1f7cb131ffd95754c release: remove gitian (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Note that this doesn't yet touch any glibc back compat related code.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK ab9c34237ab7b056394e0bd1f7cb131ffd95754c
Tree-SHA512: 8e2fe3ec1097f54bb11ab9136b43818d90eab5dbb0a663ad6a552966ada4bdb49cc12ff4e66f0ec0ec5400bda5c81f3a3ce70a9ebb6fe1e0db612da9f00a51a7
e80259f1976545e4f1ab6a420644be0c32261773 Additionally treat Tx.nVersion as unsigned in joinpsbts (Matt Corallo)
970de70bdd3542e75b73c79b06f143168c361494 Dump transaction version as an unsigned integer in RPC/TxToUniv (Matt Corallo)
Pull request description:
Consensus-wise we already treat it as an unsigned integer (the
only rules around it are in CSV/locktime handling), but changing
the underlying data type means touching consensus code for a
simple cleanup change, which isn't really worth it.
See-also, https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/299
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
ACK e80259f1976545e4f1ab6a420644be0c32261773
practicalswift:
ACK e80259f1976545e4f1ab6a420644be0c32261773
ajtowns:
ACK e80259f1976545e4f1ab6a420644be0c32261773 code review -- checked all other uses of tx.nVersion treat it as unsigned (except for policy.cpp:IsStandard anyway), so looks good.
naumenkogs:
ACK e80259f
Tree-SHA512: 6760a2c77e24e9e1f79a336ca925f9bbca3a827ce02003c71d7f214b82ed3dea13fa7d9f87df9b9445cd58dff8b44a15571d821c876f22f8e5a372a014c9976b
e66870c5a4c2adbd30dca67d409fd5cd98697587 zmq: Append address to notify log output (nthumann)
241803da211265444e65f254f24dd184f2457fa9 test: Add zmq test to support multiple interfaces (nthumann)
a0b2e5cb6aa8db0563fac7d67a949b9baefe3a25 doc: Add release notes to support multiple interfaces (nthumann)
b1c3f180ecb63f3960506d202feebaa4271058ae doc: Adjust ZMQ usage to support multiple interfaces (nthumann)
347c94f551c3f144c44e00373e4dd61ff6d908b7 zmq: Add support to listen on multiple interfaces (Nicolas Thumann)
Pull request description:
This PR adds support for ZeroMQ to listen on multiple interfaces, just like the RPC server.
Currently, if you specify more than one e.g. `zmqpubhashblock` paramter, only the first one will be used. Therefore a user may be forced to listen on all interfaces (e.g. `zmqpubhashblock=0.0.0.0:28332`), which can result in an increased attack surface.
With this PR a user can specify multiple interfaces to listen on, e.g.
`-zmqpubhashblock=tcp://127.0.0.1:28332 -zmqpubhashblock=tcp://192.168.1.123:28332`.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK e66870c5a4c2adbd30dca67d409fd5cd98697587
instagibbs:
reACK e66870c5a4
Tree-SHA512: f38ab4a6ff00dc821e5f4842508cefadb701e70bb3893992c1b32049be20247c8aa9476a1f886050c5f17fe7f2ce99ee30193ce2c81a7482a5a51f8fc22300c7
090530cc24054d6b4658752bb88f75a3b73eab5d feature: Added ability for users to add a startup command (Ben Carman)
Pull request description:
Thoughts for adding the feature is for users to be able to add things like electrum-personal-server or lnd to run whenever Bitcoin Core is running. Open to feedback about the feature.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 090530cc24
dongcarl:
tACK 090530c
Tree-SHA512: ba514d2fc8b4fb12b781c1a9c89845a25fce0b80ba7c907761cde4abb81edd03fa643682edc895986dc20b273ac3b95769508806db7fbd99ec28623f85c41e67
a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413 doc: improve subtree check instructions (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Running `git-subtree-check.sh` requires adding the subtree repository as a remote. I learned that several years ago and then forgot again.
This PR also improves the error message if the subtree commit can't be found.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413
fanquake:
ACK a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413 - this looks ok.
Tree-SHA512: 959bd923726c172d17f9f97f8a56988bf2df5a94d3131e5152a66150b941394cee9e82fdc6b86e09c0ba91d123a496599f07ca454212168d8d301738394c12c8
fa6ed82794f4aecbd71667b5491edbbc4eaeaaef doc: update bips.md with buried BIP9 deployments (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Also, remove the activation heights, as they can be retrieved from `./src/chainparams.cpp` (if needed)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa6ed82794f4aecbd71667b5491edbbc4eaeaaef, needs backport to 0.19 I guess.
Tree-SHA512: 9c069cc14589a3e2309d76f042677c024a9e14d16dbfccef54c4a2963ca7853d01f042b0237e346538c557591b7553deed9dd811ba64bbd0ced88883d562c59a
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>
