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
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
|
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 <btcdrak@gmail.com>) id 1Y0deM-0004H6-Td
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:57:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.51; envelope-from=btcdrak@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f51.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Y0deL-0000nv-UC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:57:54 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x12so15808655wgg.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:57:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.194.60.45 with SMTP id e13mr56779243wjr.109.1418680667905;
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:57:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.25.130 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:57:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MDftgnxB5itQS2jKqZsPj2vg-=SM+jVqUDxKGRZjuukA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141215124730.GA8321@savin.petertodd.org>
<CADJgMztRdNWyogPCjv64qpUHcvGDiOZDVAkv5Ra8hn25Z9xa8w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0OvDPazCQVonhokm0KopN-WYj0_PP_LO8gPewc1LG5Qow@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApLimi+Jskwn=70+cfqr8=d55CKJFpBDBmW48zJk24PSBZczg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0MDftgnxB5itQS2jKqZsPj2vg-=SM+jVqUDxKGRZjuukA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:57:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CADJgMzsSg28ZJakKaqx8xqTKqTuszzNj2yqEj_cDKaxU5C4tiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86cf4842a31f050a48551c
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HK_RANDOM_FROM From username looks random
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.6 HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM Envelope sender username looks random
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(btcdrak[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: 1Y0deL-0000nv-UC
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Recent EvalScript() changes mean
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can't be merged
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, 15 Dec 2014 21:57:55 -0000
--047d7b86cf4842a31f050a48551c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
>
> At a macro level, that cycle was repeated many times, leading to the
> opposite end result: a lot of tiny movement/refactor/movement/refactor
> producing the review and patch annoyances described.
>
> It produces a blizzard of new files and new data structures, breaking a
> bunch of out-of-tree patches, complicating review quite a bit. If the vast
> majority of code movement is up front, followed by algebraic
> simplifications, followed by data structure work, further patches are easy
> to review/apply with less impact on unrelated code.
>
> The flow of patches into the tree over time should be examined. Simply
> tagging patches as movement-only does not address the described problem at
> all.
>
I think we can all agree that if the process is made more friendly for
reviewers, everyone wins. It's been hard to even know where everything is
because it moves so often. e.g. In the last couple weeks stuff moved from
core.h to core/block.h to primitive/block.h or something to that effect.
Anyway, Jeff said this quite elegantly.
--047d7b86cf4842a31f050a48551c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmai=
l_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>At a macro level, that cycle was r=
epeated many times, leading to the opposite end result: =C2=A0a lot of tiny=
movement/refactor/movement/refactor producing the review and patch annoyan=
ces described.<br></div><div><br></div><div>It produces a blizzard of new f=
iles and new data structures, breaking a bunch of out-of-tree patches, comp=
licating review quite a bit.=C2=A0 If the vast majority of code movement is=
up front, followed by algebraic simplifications, followed by data structur=
e work, further patches are easy to review/apply with less impact on unrela=
ted code.</div><div><br></div><div>The flow of patches into the tree over t=
ime should be examined.=C2=A0 Simply tagging patches as movement-only does =
not address the described problem at all.<br></div></div></div></div></bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>I think we can all agree that if the process is =
made more friendly for reviewers, everyone wins. It's been hard to even=
know where everything is because it moves so often. e.g. In the last coupl=
e weeks stuff moved from core.h to core/block.h to primitive/block.h or som=
ething to that effect. Anyway, Jeff said this quite elegantly.</div></div><=
/div></div>
--047d7b86cf4842a31f050a48551c--
|
