Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
	designates 208.79.240.5 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=208.79.240.5; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me;
	helo=smtpauth.rollernet.us; 
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=zG4o5igBFX=4Yg340B0QGF42RBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1309478838.3689.25.camel@Desktop666>
	<20110701080042.GA657@ulyssis.org>
	<BANLkTim-QWvtfL65mo3uW7ESiehKOmHjtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=DWUhGmoHcQB5EPZHF71JE71gcTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1309524016.2541.0.camel@Desktop666>
	<BANLkTimobc7471uBMLBecYT3vz0GO6RLzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinqcaDMci-YmYHpDd1sZ_RT9pEOvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=zG4o5igBFX=4Yg340B0QGF42RBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-1bx1BR6gOH3Osz0CZhN+"
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 02:46:18 +0200
Message-ID: <1309567578.2541.26.camel@Desktop666>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.3.24
Precedence: list


--=-1bx1BR6gOH3Osz0CZhN+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Personally, I have little preference, sipa and gmaxwell fall on the side
of cherry-pick, but I think it might be good to do a broad-base test of
CWallet in 0.3.24 so potential bugs can be found in it before crypto and
0.4. In either case, I dont think we should spend too much time as this
is just a minor update release, just get it out the door so we can focus
on 0.4 (hopefully) without interruption.

Matt

On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 20:37 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Hum, it sounds like there was some misunderstanding, on my part at
> least.  On IRC, people are talking about a cherry-picked release,
> basically 0.3.23 + a couple specific fixes, rather than what is
> current in upstream git.  I had assumed people meant releasing current
> git + some specific fixes not yet in git.
>=20
> Wearing the Release Mangler hat, cherry-picked branches have a few
> disadvantages:
>=20
> * you're throwing away the testing people have done on upstream git
> * the new branch would have zero testing, as most people have been
> testing 0.3.23 or upstream git
> * it would be a dead-end branch, never touched after release.  bug
> reports for such a release might not necessarily be applicable to last
> version or current upstream or anywhere in between.
>=20
> That is the convention wisdom, anyway.  But to paraphrase Pirates of
> the Caribbean, release management rules aren't really rules, they're
> more like... guidelines.  :)
>=20
> The cherry-picked 0.3.24 release, according to IRC wisdom, wouldn't
> have to worry about shipping CWallet, which needs a fix or two from
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/358
>=20
> I can live with, and roll a release for, either (a) 0.3.23 + select
> fixes or (b) current upstream + pull #358.  My preference is (b), but
> this is a community and Holy Alpaca decision, not just a call I will
> make on my own.
>=20
> Comments welcome...
>=20


--=-1bx1BR6gOH3Osz0CZhN+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=jfw/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-1bx1BR6gOH3Osz0CZhN+--