Post-release updates for v26.06 by madelinevibes · Pull Request #9223 · ElementsProject/lightning

madelinevibes · 2026-06-16T02:56:52Z

Post-release updates for v26.06 per the Release Checklist Instructions
Changelog-None

nGoline · 2026-06-17T17:35:17Z

All tests passed. Just waiting for another review to merge it.

sangbida · 2026-06-18T03:21:47Z

 > [!IMPORTANT]
 >
-> 26.06 FREEZE April 30th: Non-bugfix PRs not ready by this date will wait for 26.09.
+> 26.09 FREEZE August 5th: Non-bugfix PRs not ready by this date will wait for 26.12.


nit: It would be good to split this large commit out into smaller commits as done in this PR here: https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/pull/9051/commits. This commit is doing too many things at once, some of those commits may also need updated changelogs.

I hope it's better now. I don't think I can divide it much more than this...

Co-Authored-By: Madeline <madeline@blockstream.com> Changelog-None

Changelog-None

Rename splice→splice_init, relative_satoshis→funding_contribution_satoshis, txsigs_tlvs→tx_signatures_tlvs, and splice_info/batch_info→funding_txid/message_type. Consolidate three CLN-specific shim patches into extracted_peer_cln_batch_element.patch. Changelog-None

… if only peer Per BOLT #2: when both nodes set next_funding in channel_reestablish but txids differ, MUST send error and fail the channel; when only the peer sets next_funding, MUST send tx_abort instead. Track we_set_next_funding before tlvs is overwritten by the received channel_reestablish so the distinction survives the receive. Includes a regression test: reconnect two nodes with a corrupted inflight txid so both set next_funding with mismatched values, and verify both sides call open_err_fatal. Changelog-None

sangbida · 2026-06-19T05:12:56Z

I didn't get a chance to review this PR before it got merged. I'll make sure to either comment with an ack or ✅ the PR before its merged.

madelinevibes · 2026-06-19T05:26:40Z

I didn't get a chance to review this PR before it got merged. I'll make sure to either comment with an ack or ✅ the PR before its merged.

I'm adding this to my performance review notes.

ddustin

NACK because:

Deviating from the spec isn't good
We probably should be implementing tlv's we add instead of adding them without actually doing them
I'm not a fan of some of the renaming.
I don't understand why we're deleting patches.

I hope these changes didn't get bundled into a release, as this could absolutely break channels. The is_splice_active logic for channel_ready deviates from the spec.

It might be okay but this definitely is something that should be done with deep thought and as much testing as possible -- not lumped in with a bunch of rename refactoring.

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:05:19Z

+		    && recv_tlvs->my_current_funding_locked
+		    && !bitcoin_txid_eq(
+			    &recv_tlvs->my_current_funding_locked->my_current_funding_locked_txid,
+			    &peer->channel->funding.txid));


Not sure why this got merged in with release notes but this shouldn't be here

This should have been rolled back by #9230 as per your comments. Must have slipped on the merge from master.

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:06:12Z

+msgdata,splice_init,locktime,u32,
+msgdata,splice_init,funding_pubkey,point,
+msgdata,splice_init,tlvs,splice_init_tlvs,
+tlvtype,splice_init_tlvs,require_confirmed_inputs,2


Was this feature implemented or just the tlv for it added?

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:07:12Z

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-diff --git b/wire/peer_wire.csv a/wire/peer_wire.csv


What's the reason for deleting these patches?

The deleted patches were provisional overrides for pre-standard behavior. Once the spec merged those definitions into the BOLTs, the patches became redundant, and would break the extraction if left in.

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:07:28Z

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-diff --git b/wire/peer_wire.csv a/wire/peer_wire.csv


and this one

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:07:30Z

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
--- wire/peer_exp_wire.csv	2022-06-22 19:07:24.000000000 -0500


and this one

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:08:03Z

 struct splice_ack {
 	struct channel_id channel_id;
-	s64 relative_satoshis;
+	s64 funding_contribution_satoshis;


Not a big fan of this name because the value is not a contribution. It can be positive or negative, hance the name relative.

The name is correct as per the BOLT spec.

Okay that works 👍

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:08:17Z

 struct fuzzsplice {
 	struct channel_id channel_id;
-	s64 relative_satoshis;
+	s64 funding_contribution_satoshis;


Don't like the name here either.

This is exactly the name used on the BOLT specification, and since the wire messages are generated from the spec, this is the name we got.

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:08:34Z

 	    && peer->next_index[LOCAL] == 1
-	    && next_commitment_number == 1) {
+	    && next_commitment_number == 1
+	    && !is_splice_active) {


This deviates from the spec

This also should have been rolled back by #9230 as per your comments. Must have slipped on the merge from master.

ddustin · 2026-06-19T23:21:18Z

I double checked the release and it looks like these changes didn't go into it, so that's good.

Looks like perhaps the branches got mixed up? Definitely need to clean this up 🤔

nGoline · 2026-06-19T23:47:19Z

These are the post-release chores. This will be included in the next release.

ddustin · 2026-06-24T13:47:39Z

The next step is to revert bbcda5a again and build a clean replacement PR for discussion.

Did 2e23291 go through review?

Let's figure out why this commit(s) got erroneously included and ensure this doesn't happen again.

nGoline · 2026-06-24T21:49:54Z

@ddustin re your point on the is_splice_active / channel_ready logic: you're right, the txid comparison is incorrect. Rather than reverting the whole change, I've opened #9256 to fix it properly, following eclair's approach: a funding_tx_index (0 for the original funding including RBF, +1 per splice) tracked on the inflight and the channel, with the reestablish check gating on funding_tx_index > 0 instead of comparing against the mutable funding txid. There's a regression test that retransmits channel_ready after a splice without the fix and passes with it.

The behavioural change is a single line, so the plan is to get the semantics reviewed properly, and if we can't converge before the v26.09 freeze, roll that one line back with a FIXME and keep the plumbing for the follow-up. Would appreciate your review.

nGoline · 2026-06-24T21:53:38Z

The next step is to revert bbcda5a again and build a clean replacement PR for discussion.

Did 2e23291 go through review?

Let's figure out why this commit(s) got erroneously included and ensure this doesn't happen again.

I'm proposing some changes to the Github ruleset to enforce an approving review, require checks to pass, and require the branch to be up to date with the approval re-confirmed after any update, so nobody can rebase-and-instantly-merge stale code like what happened.

ddustin · 2026-06-26T14:13:06Z

I'm proposing some changes to the Github ruleset to enforce an approving review, require checks to pass, and require the branch to be up to date with the approval re-confirmed after any update, so nobody can rebase-and-instantly-merge stale code like what happened.

Love this idea 👍

madelinevibes requested a review from nGoline June 16, 2026 02:57

madelinevibes added this to the v26.09 milestone Jun 16, 2026

madelinevibes requested a review from sangbida June 16, 2026 02:58

madelinevibes added the Status::Ready for Review The work has been completed and is now awaiting evaluation or approval. label Jun 16, 2026

cdecker approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

madelinevibes assigned nGoline Jun 17, 2026

nGoline removed their request for review June 17, 2026 13:41

nGoline force-pushed the post-release-26.06 branch 2 times, most recently from f8691ab to d3b3404 Compare June 17, 2026 14:48

This was referenced Jun 17, 2026

Revert "Bolt quote updates and improvements" #9230

Merged

Bolt quote updates and improvements #9079

Merged

nGoline requested a review from cdecker June 17, 2026 17:34

madelinevibes assigned sangbida and unassigned nGoline Jun 18, 2026

sangbida reviewed Jun 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

madelinevibes assigned nGoline and unassigned sangbida Jun 18, 2026

nGoline force-pushed the post-release-26.06 branch from d3b3404 to 31c59a4 Compare June 18, 2026 20:58

nGoline and others added 4 commits June 18, 2026 18:00

Versions: post-release updates for v26.06

046344e

Co-Authored-By: Madeline <madeline@blockstream.com> Changelog-None

BOLTs: update announcement_signatures and next_funding reconnect quotes

e5b93a3

Changelog-None

nGoline force-pushed the post-release-26.06 branch from 31c59a4 to 2e23291 Compare June 18, 2026 21:01

madelinevibes merged commit 7fb9a29 into master Jun 19, 2026
53 of 59 checks passed

madelinevibes deleted the post-release-26.06 branch June 19, 2026 00:08

ddustin reviewed Jun 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

		@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
		diff --git b/wire/peer_wire.csv a/wire/peer_wire.csv

		@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
		diff --git b/wire/peer_wire.csv a/wire/peer_wire.csv

		@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
		--- wire/peer_exp_wire.csv 2022-06-22 19:07:24.000000000 -0500

Uh oh!

Conversation

madelinevibes commented Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

nGoline commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

sangbida Jun 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sangbida commented Jun 19, 2026

Uh oh!

madelinevibes commented Jun 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ddustin left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nGoline Jun 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ddustin commented Jun 19, 2026

Uh oh!

nGoline commented Jun 19, 2026

Uh oh!

ddustin commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

nGoline commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

nGoline commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

ddustin commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

sangbida Jun 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

madelinevibes commented Jun 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ddustin left a comment •

edited

Loading

nGoline Jun 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading