Bitcoin Core 0.10 release schedule

Bitcoin Core 0.10 release schedule
2014-10-26  8:53 ` Luke Dashjr
                   ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-10-26  7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

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)

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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-26  8:53 ` 
                   ` 
  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-10-26  7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

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)

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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-26  7:57 [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.10 release schedule Wladimir
  2014-10-26  8:53 ` Luke Dashjr

  2014-10-26  9:10   ` Wladimir
  2014-10-26 11:44 ` Melvin Carvalho
  
From: odinn @ 2014-10-26  8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Q., re. transaction fee changes / txconfirmtarget described at
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c8a25189bcb1381eddf46b9a9743ba48e929439e/doc/release-notes.md

(for Core 0.10)

~ does this include the floating fees for 0.10 as described at
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/floating-fees-for-0-10/ ?

thanks in advance for clarifications

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)
> 
> 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
> 

- -- 
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUTLbyAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CzkgH/jqh3+RxdFR1sFn8PENbUvKN
M3GUF3otRDenuVOY6Gbs1Sv3IBToC1zAR1RdktYeTrfQlCgO89ybASJapqQ6H8XP
7STY99dtZgRxkSwsE5bMHceVlHlSrtCBoPCZpPte9+8KVZUpQ/WNNPhjU84sQTj5
n2wkG7GdtD4vEoLHgLo1yEMoeRcwS8eb7kUeYAdRQbAOdNBqUkcs0FW2yvAnk//M
/ubtWoWr7c+Ksozp45I7rtB6UL1YrYMBJURwKsCc62mpnc1rkvedRmQVC1KO/em1
8nAvobRUbrExPtNO8+AkWZsyiSIR+PANV4h3IOHbERC6L8iGrD/QiUjuAjXXwSw=
=tplQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-26  8:55 ` odinn

  2014-10-26 18:17     ` odinn
  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-10-26  9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: odinn;  Bitcoin Dev

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Q., re. transaction fee changes / txconfirmtarget described at
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c8a25189bcb1381eddf46b9a9743ba48e929439e/doc/release-notes.md
>
> (for Core 0.10)
>
> ~ does this include the floating fees for 0.10 as described at
> https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/floating-fees-for-0-10/ ?
>
> thanks in advance for clarifications

Yes, floating/smart fees has been merged a while ago

- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3959
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4250

Wladimir



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-26  7:57 [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.10 release schedule Wladimir
  2014-10-26  8:53 ` Luke Dashjr
  2014-10-26  8:55 ` odinn

  2014-10-27  7:49   ` Wladimir
  
From: Melvin Carvalho @ 2014-10-26 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wladimir;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3307 bytes --]

On 26 October 2014 08:57, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail•com> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4339 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-26  9:10   ` Wladimir

  
From: odinn @ 2014-10-26 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wladimir;  Bitcoin Dev

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Thanks,

Followup question on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3959 :

This describes current dust change handling:

(gavinandresen)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3959/files#r13494256

Related Question:  This describes how wallets would let you know a
transaction is 'precious' with a flag --
(jgarzik)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3753#issuecomment-49464772

- -- however, it doesn't appear to be part of 0.10 anymore ~ what is it
that would keep it from being incorporated into 0.10?
(or was that addressed by a later commit?)

Possibly also related (suggested dusting feature):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4079#issuecomment-41010593

Thanks in advance for your responses.


Wladimir wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM, odinn
> <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>> 
>> Q., re. transaction fee changes / txconfirmtarget described at 
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c8a25189bcb1381eddf46b9a9743ba48e929439e/doc/release-notes.md
>>
>>
>> 
(for Core 0.10)
>> 
>> ~ does this include the floating fees for 0.10 as described at 
>> https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/floating-fees-for-0-10/ ?
>> 
>> thanks in advance for clarifications
> 
> Yes, floating/smart fees has been merged a while ago
> 
> - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3959 -
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4250
> 
> Wladimir
> 

- -- 
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUTTq8AAoJEGxwq/inSG8C8PYH/jrZIgecpEiwUYdRGT/dxvrE
qHrlsJz8aPY/E/ojNE4MY4Con5seH2IRL+qg14pZvIQNJSipRYejh0BeqQ2YkfAF
leEt8PlpblNqV0Ieq1VmdJK5wnF3crNZsNdPv73Z7UXplXo8sG+lYGENgC11s+wN
QI29F3Kkrqk66aa6VmRbNzRIgL1JYfTkZLba9ApZNxJsugeOgmlOQw6+q5hgChKy
lxN5s+P/wohH0n047ksYdiMnXbZwPL2scUEN87D74KYqYdCa6AB7vMkLETO2msSg
ndC9ge8LfTODlEuFA9rQ8CgLAkwVWCaCbqph7iqTt6Cvdnqeo9XvlrpcB2B31hI=
=xn6P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-26  8:53 ` Luke Dashjr

  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-10-27  7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  Bitcoin Dev

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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-26 11:44 ` Melvin Carvalho

  2014-10-27 11:24     ` Melvin Carvalho
  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-10-27  7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Melvin Carvalho;  Bitcoin Dev

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail•com> wrote:

> 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?

See the opening post from @jgarzik, it has some documentation on how
to use the API.

It would be nice to have some write-up about the current functionality
in the release notes, but there currently is none.

It's a RPC-side change, not a P2P-side change so it doesn't require a BIP.

> 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.

It's not too late, it's not been merged yet.

Though a W3C standard takes a long time to pan out, and it may be more
useful to have this available rather than wait for the API to be
standardized (which means this will need to be postponed at least one
version). As you say, a new interface be added later under another
URI.

Note that we're only interested in exposing read-only, public data
which is already available in Bitcoin Core's internals.
We're not aiming to add a fully-fledged block explorer with (say)
address indexes. Although that could be part of the standard if it
allows implementations to support just a subset.

Anyhow - please coordinate this with Jeff Garzik, it's better to work
together here.

Wladimir



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-27  7:49   ` Wladimir

  2014-10-27 11:37       ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Melvin Carvalho @ 2014-10-27 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wladimir;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2466 bytes --]

On 27 October 2014 08:49, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> See the opening post from @jgarzik, it has some documentation on how
> to use the API.
>
> It would be nice to have some write-up about the current functionality
> in the release notes, but there currently is none.
>
> It's a RPC-side change, not a P2P-side change so it doesn't require a BIP.
>

Thanks.  Yes, I worked this out after looking at the code.

I would be happy to help with documentation.


>
> > 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.
>
> It's not too late, it's not been merged yet.
>
> Though a W3C standard takes a long time to pan out, and it may be more
> useful to have this available rather than wait for the API to be
> standardized (which means this will need to be postponed at least one
> version). As you say, a new interface be added later under another
> URI.
>

Agree.  I think these changes are great for 0.10.


>
> Note that we're only interested in exposing read-only, public data
> which is already available in Bitcoin Core's internals.
> We're not aiming to add a fully-fledged block explorer with (say)
> address indexes. Although that could be part of the standard if it
> allows implementations to support just a subset.
>

Got it thanks.


>
> Anyhow - please coordinate this with Jeff Garzik, it's better to work
> together here.
>

Will do.  Work in this area is ongoing, both in terms of
coding/patches/testing and documentation.

Do you think it would a reasonable idea to put down some thoughts and
proposals in a BIP?


>
> Wladimir
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3790 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-10-27 11:24     ` Melvin Carvalho

  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2014-10-27 11:37 UTC ( / )
  To: Melvin Carvalho;  Bitcoin Dev

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail•com> wrote:
> Do you think it would a reasonable idea to put down some thoughts and
> proposals in a BIP?

It would certainly be nice to start with a document that reflects the
new REST interface.  That makes a good starting point for further
discussion.

In general the interface exports what information is already
available.  As Wladimir notes, there is no plan to turn this into a
full fledged block explorer, if that implies adding indices etc.

Feedback on the HTTP headers and form, and additional thoughts &
proposals are welcome.  My pull request is intended to present
something minimal, that is easy to review and merge.  My own list of
further to-dos includes

* last-modified and etag headers
* export UTXOs a la Mike Hearn's getutxos query
* eventually rebuild the RPC server to something multithreaded a la
https://github.com/jgarzik/rpcsrv

PR #2844 @ https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2844

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/