summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/13/4f28a3126c079ef7b0d584b6954f918aeeeff2
blob: 30cdfbba8c86f77d9c683b5febfa62e366f74d41 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1RuQjr-0008F9-RB
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:44:19 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1RuQjn-0003jv-RD
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:44:19 +0000
Received: by werc1 with SMTP id c1so6285256wer.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:44:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.135.76 with SMTP id t54mr7394093wei.14.1328543049504; Mon,
	06 Feb 2012 07:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.112.199 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:44:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0-eMkfJiOL_2VN5TUuvs_fYANa3XXoM5OX4AMP1W2iSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
	(gavinandresen[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: 1RuQjn-0003jv-RD
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Version 0.6 release candidate 1 plan
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, 06 Feb 2012 15:44:19 -0000

There are several major changes in git HEAD that are ready for wider
testing. The best way of getting lots of testing is to release
binaries, so I'm going to be pulling together a release candidate in
the next day or two.

The goal will be to get at least a full month of release candidate
review/testing before releasing a 0.6 final, with zero High Priority
bugs ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?labels=Priority+High&state=open
)

Here's the proposed TODO list for a rc1:

Pull:
800 : bug fix, multiple output display fix in GUI
799 : Have bitcoind recomend a secure RPC password
769 : Make transactions with extra data in scriptSig non-standard

Rebase/pull:
795 : Fix minimize to tray

Pull a modified version of:
755 : Don't vote for /P2SH/ unless -p2sh specified

I'd like to pull 787 (CAddrMan: stochastic address manager) but it
didn't pass my sanity tests.

I'm going to start a separate discussion thread with some thoughts on
rolling out higher-level multisignature support.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen