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-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1XiemC-0004dw-6t
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:31:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.177; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f177.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xiem9-00057k-RZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:31:40 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id tp5so3760074ieb.22
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.162.16 with SMTP id l16mr897681ioe.54.1414395092479;
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.249.170 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201410260853.38850.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CA+s+GJA3-qK71TcUCYQ3xOdi+zgE_fB9N6NJkNBUDtWnA-0dcA@mail.gmail.com>
<201410260853.38850.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:31:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJBjXGzH07TTt5E1-sgPQhMrWwqOEXUeFk2Azq4=Tb3V2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(laanwj[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: 1Xiem9-00057k-RZ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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, 27 Oct 2014 07:31:40 -0000
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 26, 2014 7:57:12 AM Wladimir wrote:
>> Let me know if there is anything else you think is ready (and not too
>> risky) to be in 0.10.
>
> At the very least, we need:
> #5106 Bugfix: submitblock: Use a temporary CValidationState to determine ...
> #5103 CreateNewBlock and miner_tests: Also check generated template is ...
> #5078 Bugfix: CreateNewBlock: Check that active chain has a valid tip ...
> (or at least some conclusion for the problem discussed therein)
OK
> Harmless/No reason not to have:
> #3727 RPC: submitblock: Support for returning specific rejection reasons
> #1816 Support for BIP 23 block proposal
> #5144 Qt: Elaborate on signverify message dialog warning
> #5071 Introduce CNodePolicy for putting isolated node policy code and ...
> (futher commits exist that should ideally get in after this is merged)
ACK on the UI change,
I think it would be best to let the full-blown "miner policy class"
wait for 0.11.
> Debatable (but harmless, and miners seem to want it):
> #5077 Enable customising node policy for datacarrier data size with a ...
OK, that's a low-risk change, it just makes what is now a constant configurable.
Wladimir
|
