Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <grarpamp@gmail.com>) id 1SgOWX-00030t-E2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:04:49 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=grarpamp@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SgOWW-00069k-E1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:04:49 +0000 Received: by werg55 with SMTP id g55so3717436wer.34 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:04:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.207.27 with SMTP id m27mr6714551weo.42.1339974282191; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.7.105 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:04:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTHo0U+2U5vtbmTEiKB6rBHbfuRHsm-bcnRhSrs-2jZpw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAD2Ti2_Z-mzHu_VG7fq+sgQj7CfdZ_nKoa7Q6nDObwBSL6yXgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS2fgQCc_-FgiXs0JABkAzZWNrbhhWYutvRgFLsnKYaEWDqwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD2Ti29+=L+ss7fwivy+gfPFuE10sQdy68TGhL-30ngWKTLdQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS2fgTHo0U+2U5vtbmTEiKB6rBHbfuRHsm-bcnRhSrs-2jZpw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:04:42 -0400 Message-ID: <CAD2Ti28eC6A2+k8JfV3nXMLmye12K28rfCAorby87aXgV2ZGaQ@mail.gmail.com> From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) 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 (grarpamp[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 0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1SgOWW-00069k-E1 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.6.x - detachdb in wrong place 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: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:04:49 -0000 >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin >> https://git.gitorious.org/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable > > The latter is Luke's backports of security and stability fixes to > otherwise unmaintained old versions. Ah ok, coming from cvs/svn, it's a bit different to find things. There's something to be said for maintenance of pior branches. Though I see some things I can use in github and my work would be more useful there, so maybe I'll stwitch to that from gitorius/0.6.x. Presumably the github/0.6.2 branch is safe for production? What degree of caution about wallet eating should be made for those using github/master?