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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1R5dVh-0003Xs-C6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:03:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.182; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qy0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R5dVg-0004tg-PG
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:03:45 +0000
Received: by qyk4 with SMTP id 4so6413245qyk.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.67.24 with SMTP id p24mr1990823qci.71.1316437419263; Mon,
19 Sep 2011 06:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.49.12 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2FBNv26E4LHmi9GVfi1HLR1wR__qGp1_gjco8rwN0L4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201109181930.59565.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABsx9T2FBNv26E4LHmi9GVfi1HLR1wR__qGp1_gjco8rwN0L4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:03:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQ-GZ+veHEKayw4qQuBHYXZcQruEw1iUwdyEtdom3OVmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[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
0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1R5dVg-0004tg-PG
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.4.x stable branch
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, 19 Sep 2011 13:03:45 -0000
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> My initial reaction is no. Testing and bug-fixing is the bottleneck
> for making core bitcoin better, and maintaining two release lines
> won't make that better.
>
> I also think that until we get to a "1.0" that we can all agree is
> ready for everybody AND their grandma to use, using the word "stable"
> would be dishonest.
I think the primary concern that they are attempting to address there
is providing a stable base bitcoind for miners, banks, and webservices
to apply their patches on top of.
Right now, if they want to keep up with development they are stuck
forward porting against often disruptive changes as just about
everyone running something of importance needs some patch or another
so you have people who are clearly in the know like Luke and tcatm
trailing development on some of their systems by many months.
This isn't healthy for the network.
I'm not convinced a bugfixes only branch will help much: Even bug fixes
will disrupt local fixes, and testing and supervising your upgrade usually
takes more effort than the forward porting.
I'd rather see more effort put into mainlining the changes people are
carrying sooner and restructuring code to better accommodate patches
which aren't suitable for mainline. This will also encourage people
to make the fixes they're running publicly available, rather than
just keeping them private for competitive advantage.
|
