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 ) id 1XiMF5-00009E-IC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:44:15 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=melvincarvalho@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XiMF4-0002o8-0U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:44:15 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id hz20so4497919lab.39 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 04:44:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.8.136 with SMTP id r8mr1967022laa.91.1414323846938; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 04:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.1.234 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 04:44:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:44:06 +0100 Message-ID: From: Melvin Carvalho To: Wladimir Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ae547e8ac1050651eee4 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 (melvincarvalho[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: 1XiMF4-0002o8-0U Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.10 release schedule X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:44:15 -0000 --089e0158ae547e8ac1050651eee4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 26 October 2014 08:57, Wladimir wrote: > Now that headers-first is merged it would be good to do a 0.10 release > soon. Not *too* soon as a major code change like that takes some time > to pan out, but I'd like to propose the following: > > - November 18: split off 0.10 branch, translation message and feature > freeze > - December 1: release 10.0rc1, start Release Candidate cycle > > That leaves three weeks until the freeze. After the release and branch > split-off, the RC cycle will run until no critical problems are found. > For major releases this is usually more painful than for stable > releases, but if we can keep to these dates I'd expect the final > release no later than January 2015. > > Let's aim to have any pending development for 0.10 merged before > November 18. Major work that I'm aware of is: > > - BIP62 (#5134, #5065) > - Verification library (#5086, #5118, #5119) > - Gitian descriptors overhaul, so that Gitian depends = Travis depends > (#4727) > - Autoprune (#4701) > - Add "warmup mode" for RPC server (#5007) > - Add unauthenticated HTTP REST interface (#2844) > Thanks for the update. I was even unaware of of #2844 : 'The beginnings of a block explorer-style API for bitcoind.' https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2844 Seems to me like an important piece of work, Im glad it's finally made the cut. Firstly, apologies in coming in late to the conversation. As I am also working on a REST API for electronic coins. Some questions: 1. Is there a BIP, or some other doc (e.g. gist), outlining the REST output e.g. the response format and MIME types. Or just compile from source? 2. How set in stone is v1 of the the going forward? PS I support @maaku's comments re: "/api/v1/" -- tho I guess it is too late for that now. 3. Would there be any support to develop this interface into something that would be W3C standards compliant, or reviewed by the REST community. So for example a context can be provided to self document the terms (something I've almost completed) and would allow standardization of block explorer and bitcoind outputs. Right now every explorer seems to have a different JSON output. Great work! Looking forward to seeing this go live and how it devlops! > > Let me know if there is anything else you think is ready (and not too > risky) to be in 0.10. You can help along the development process by > participating in testing and reviewing of the mentioned pull requests, > or just by testing master and reporting bugs and regressions. > > Note: I intended the 0.10 release to be much sooner. The reason that > this didn't pan out is that I insisted on including headers-first, and > this took longer than expected. There seems to be a preference to > switch to a fixed (instead of feature-based) 6-month major release > schedule, ie > > - July 2015: 0.11.0 (or whatever N+1 release is called) > - January 2016: 0.12.0 (or whatever N+2 release is called) > - July 2016: 0.13.0 (or whatever N+3 release is called) > > Wladimir > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --089e0158ae547e8ac1050651eee4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 26 October 2014 08:57, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wro= te:
Now that headers-f= irst is merged it would be good to do a 0.10 release
soon. Not *too* soon as a major code change like that takes some time
to pan out, but I'd like to propose the following:

- November 18: split off 0.10 branch, translation message and feature freez= e
- December 1: release 10.0rc1, start Release Candidate cycle

That leaves three weeks until the freeze. After the release and branch
split-off, the RC cycle will run until no critical problems are found.
For major releases this is usually more painful than for stable
releases, but if we can keep to these dates I'd expect the final
release no later than January 2015.

Let's aim to have any pending development for 0.10 merged before
November 18. Major work that I'm aware of is:

- BIP62 (#5134, #5065)
- Verification library (#5086, #5118, #5119)
- Gitian descriptors overhaul, so that Gitian depends =3D Travis depends (#= 4727)
- Autoprune (#4701)
- Add "warmup mode" for RPC server (#5007)
- Add unauthenticated HTTP REST interface (#2844)

=
Thanks for the update.

I was even unaware of o= f #2844 : 'The beginnings of a block explorer-style API for bitcoind.&#= 39;

https:/= /github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2844

Seems to me lik= e an important piece of work, Im glad it's finally made the cut.
Firstly, apologies in coming in late to the conversation.=C2=A0= As I am also working on a REST API for electronic coins.=C2=A0 Some questi= ons:

1. Is there a BIP, or some other doc (e.g. gist), ou= tlining the REST output e.g. the response format and MIME types.=C2=A0 Or j= ust compile from source?

2. How set in stone is v1 of the= the going forward?=C2=A0 PS I support @maaku's comments re: "/api= /v1/" -- tho I guess it is too late for that now.

3.= Would there be any support to develop this interface into something that w= ould be W3C standards compliant, or reviewed by the REST community.=C2=A0 S= o for example a context can be provided to self document the terms (somethi= ng I've almost completed) and would allow standardization of block expl= orer and bitcoind outputs.=C2=A0 Right now every explorer seems to have a d= ifferent JSON output.

Great work!=C2=A0 Looking forward t= o seeing this go live and how it devlops!
=C2=A0

Let me know if there is anything else you think is ready (and not too
risky) to be in 0.10. You can help along the development process by
participating in testing and reviewing of the mentioned pull requests,
or just by testing master and reporting bugs and regressions.

Note: I intended the 0.10 release to be much sooner. The reason that
this didn't pan out is that I insisted on including headers-first, and<= br> this took longer than expected. There seems to be a preference to
switch to a fixed (instead of feature-based) 6-month major release
schedule, ie

- July 2015: 0.11.0 (or whatever N+1 release is called)
- January 2016: 0.12.0 (or whatever N+2 release is called)
- July 2016: 0.13.0 (or whatever N+3 release is called)

Wladimir

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--089e0158ae547e8ac1050651eee4--