Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1Yrp1s-0006eg-BJ
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 11 May 2015 14:50:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.160.181 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.160.181; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yk0-f181.google.com; 
Received: from mail-yk0-f181.google.com ([209.85.160.181])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Yrp1q-0005Eq-Ig
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 11 May 2015 14:50:00 +0000
Received: by ykec202 with SMTP id c202so37941776yke.2
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 11 May 2015 07:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.23.199 with SMTP id v47mr10656447yhv.48.1431355793091;
	Mon, 11 May 2015 07:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.13.250.69 with HTTP; Mon, 11 May 2015 07:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJBeZkWSKn4igC1ksynoQLfUpUtHBesq9MPi6yRqZZr4Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150428074414.GA19918@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<4E63339A-69B1-4885-9D7F-6D14E75CE174@petertodd.org>
	<CAPg+sBjc4iguJ8KCnUf9LrLbPkWEMc5fvr7XZsA48XQKaecN5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJBeZkWSKn4igC1ksynoQLfUpUtHBesq9MPi6yRqZZr4Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 14:49:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCC=wQFnFnrukeDvt=dAncBTScBq84Vh_fCXnYc2Vq45g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Yrp1q-0005Eq-Ig
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd:  Bitcoin core 0.11 planning
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 14:50:00 -0000

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> As softforks almost certainly require backports to older releases and other
> software anyway, I don't think they should necessarily be bound to Bitcoin
> Core major releases. If they don't require large code changes, we can easily
> do them in minor releases too.

Agree here - there is no need to time consensus changes with a major
release, as they need to be ported back to older releases anyhow.
(I don't really classify them as software features, but properties of
the underlying system that we need to adopt to)

Wladimir