Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1W47qS-0007dc-JN
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:44:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.43; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bk0-f43.google.com; 
Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1W47qR-00019h-LZ
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:44:16 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id mx11so87678bkb.16
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 03:44:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.204.101.68 with SMTP id b4mr1036118bko.20.1389959049109;
	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 03:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.69.197 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 03:44:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201401161523.38623.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CA+s+GJBo7iUEJTfJw2e6qcDmdHNGdDN442Svs5ikVyUL1Jm0Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201401161523.38623.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJDeV9-djdEsA_stznNK9zzBA_0xQFV_m6tVygJicuLWuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113356c0600aec04f0290f51
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-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: 1W47qR-00019h-LZ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:44:16 -0000

--001a113356c0600aec04f0290f51
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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=).

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.

Wladimir

--001a113356c0600aec04f0290f51
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</span> wro=
te:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;=
border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:=
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr" target=3D"_bla=
nk">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr</a><br>
<br>
These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.<br></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>#3242: Autoconf improvements needs rebase, and co=
mment from jgarzik and me taken into account (about=C2=A0<span style=3D"bac=
kground-color:rgb(251,251,251);color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Helvetica,ar=
ial,freesans,clean,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px;line-height:24=
.44444465637207px">-enable-frontends=3D)</span>.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The others appear to be more controversial as they affe=
ct mining/consensus. I&#39;d really like to see ACKs from more reviewers an=
d testers there before merging.</div><div><br></div><div>Wladimir</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div>

--001a113356c0600aec04f0290f51--