From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:41:36 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.6-gentoo; KDE/4.11.2; x86_64; ; )
References: <CA+s+GJBo7iUEJTfJw2e6qcDmdHNGdDN442Svs5ikVyUL1Jm0Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201401161523.38623.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CA+s+GJDeV9-djdEsA_stznNK9zzBA_0xQFV_m6tVygJicuLWuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJDeV9-djdEsA_stznNK9zzBA_0xQFV_m6tVygJicuLWuQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201401171841.37790.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule
Precedence: list

On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr
> > 
> > These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.
> 
> #3242: Autoconf improvements needs rebase, and comment from jgarzik and me
> taken into account (about -enable-frontends=).

I'll try to get this done over the weekend.

> The others appear to be more controversial as they affect mining/consensus.
> I'd really like to see ACKs from more reviewers and testers there before
> merging.

Can you elaborate on this? I can see how Proposals might, if buggy, affect 
consensus, but the rest shouldn't. I don't think there's anything 
controversial in any of these (does someone disagree with CPFP?).

Luke