Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule

Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule
2014-01-16 10:41 ` Warren Togami Jr.
  2014-01-16 15:23 ` Luke-Jr
  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-01-16  9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

Hello all,

It has been way to long since last major release. Many improvements and new
features have been added to master since, so we'd like to do a 0.9rc1
release soon.

The current aim is next month, February 2014.

Of course there are still some open issues that need to be resolved before
release
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?milestone=12&state=open

If there is something else that you're working on and needs to end up in
0.9, or know of some nasty bug in master that should absolutely be solved
first, please tell.

Wladimir

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 813 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-16  9:09 [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule Wladimir

  2014-01-16 15:23 ` Luke-Jr
  
From: Warren Togami Jr. @ 2014-01-16 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1990 bytes --]

Just a small note of caution for those joining in testing.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3529
Currently the master branch has this issue where leveldb renames all of
.sst files to .ldb.  This makes running the 0.8.x version of Bitcoin think
the index is corrupt.  Until a fix is included in Bitcoin master, a
workaround to allow 0.8.x to work again is to simply rename all the files
from .ldb back to .sst.

(This workaround worked for me today but failed yesterday.  It's possible I
made an error yesterday.  If it fails for you please report as we really
need to know if there are other leveldb incompatibilities.)

https://github.com/bitcoin/leveldb/pull/3
The fix for Bitcoin's leveldb is being discussed here.

Warren


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail•com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> It has been way to long since last major release. Many improvements and
> new features have been added to master since, so we'd like to do a 0.9rc1
> release soon.
>
> The current aim is next month, February 2014.
>
> Of course there are still some open issues that need to be resolved before
> release
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?milestone=12&state=open
>
> If there is something else that you're working on and needs to end up in
> 0.9, or know of some nasty bug in master that should absolutely be solved
> first, please tell.
>
> Wladimir
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3165 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-16  9:09 [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule Wladimir
  2014-01-16 10:41 ` Warren Togami Jr.

  2014-01-17 11:44   ` Wladimir
  
From: Luke-Jr @ 2014-01-16 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:09:52 AM Wladimir wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> It has been way to long since last major release. Many improvements and new
> features have been added to master since, so we'd like to do a 0.9rc1
> release soon.
> 
> The current aim is next month, February 2014.
> 
> Of course there are still some open issues that need to be resolved before
> release
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?milestone=12&state=open
> 
> If there is something else that you're working on and needs to end up in
> 0.9, or know of some nasty bug in master that should absolutely be solved
> first, please tell.
> 
> Wladimir

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr

These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-16 15:23 ` Luke-Jr

  2014-01-17 18:41     ` Luke-Jr
  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-01-17 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke-Jr;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 483 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:

>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr
>
> These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.
>

#3242: Autoconf improvements needs rebase, and comment from jgarzik and me
taken into account (about -enable-frontends=).

The others appear to be more controversial as they affect mining/consensus.
I'd really like to see ACKs from more reviewers and testers there before
merging.

Wladimir

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1211 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17 11:44   ` Wladimir

  2014-01-17 20:53       ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Luke-Jr @ 2014-01-17 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wladimir;  Bitcoin Dev

On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr
> > 
> > These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.
> 
> #3242: Autoconf improvements needs rebase, and comment from jgarzik and me
> taken into account (about -enable-frontends=).

I'll try to get this done over the weekend.

> The others appear to be more controversial as they affect mining/consensus.
> I'd really like to see ACKs from more reviewers and testers there before
> merging.

Can you elaborate on this? I can see how Proposals might, if buggy, affect 
consensus, but the rest shouldn't. I don't think there's anything 
controversial in any of these (does someone disagree with CPFP?).

Luke



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17 18:41     ` Luke-Jr

  2014-01-17 21:04         ` Mark Friedenbach
                           ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2014-01-17 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke-Jr;  Bitcoin Dev

<vendor hat: on>  BitPay sure would like to see CPFP in upstream.

I think the main hurdle to merging was that various people disagreed
on various edge case handling and implementation details, but no
fundamental objections.


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr
>> >
>> > These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.
>>
>> #3242: Autoconf improvements needs rebase, and comment from jgarzik and me
>> taken into account (about -enable-frontends=).
>
> I'll try to get this done over the weekend.
>
>> The others appear to be more controversial as they affect mining/consensus.
>> I'd really like to see ACKs from more reviewers and testers there before
>> merging.
>
> Can you elaborate on this? I can see how Proposals might, if buggy, affect
> consensus, but the rest shouldn't. I don't think there's anything
> controversial in any of these (does someone disagree with CPFP?).
>
> Luke
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17 18:41     ` Luke-Jr

  2014-01-17 21:04         ` 
                           ` 
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2014-01-17 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke-Jr;  Bitcoin Dev

<vendor hat: on>  BitPay sure would like to see CPFP in upstream.

I think the main hurdle to merging was that various people disagreed
on various edge case handling and implementation details, but no
fundamental objections.


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr
>> >
>> > These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.
>>
>> #3242: Autoconf improvements needs rebase, and comment from jgarzik and me
>> taken into account (about -enable-frontends=).
>
> I'll try to get this done over the weekend.
>
>> The others appear to be more controversial as they affect mining/consensus.
>> I'd really like to see ACKs from more reviewers and testers there before
>> merging.
>
> Can you elaborate on this? I can see how Proposals might, if buggy, affect
> consensus, but the rest shouldn't. I don't think there's anything
> controversial in any of these (does someone disagree with CPFP?).
>
> Luke
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17 20:53       ` Jeff Garzik
  2014-01-17 21:04         ` Mark Friedenbach

  2014-01-18  8:11         ` Odinn Cyberguerrilla
  
From: Luke-Jr @ 2014-01-17 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:53:47 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> <vendor hat: on>  BitPay sure would like to see CPFP in upstream.
> 
> I think the main hurdle to merging was that various people disagreed
> on various edge case handling and implementation details, but no
> fundamental objections.

Heck, even I disagree with implementation details, but it's still better than 
nothing. We can always merge major reorganisations/reimplementations later 
when they're written: merging this one doesn't mean we're stuck with it 
forever...

Luke



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17 20:53       ` Jeff Garzik
  2014-01-17 21:04         ` Mark Friedenbach
  2014-01-17 21:31         ` Luke-Jr

  2014-01-18 11:05           ` Wladimir
  
From: Odinn Cyberguerrilla @ 2014-01-18  8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

<ABISprotocol hat: on>

regarding:
stuff not getting into blockchain in a day's time,
microdonations not facilitated as much as they could be,

that would be:

very bad
much news
such fail

Seriously, that would not be so good.

Hope I made you laugh a bit



> <vendor hat: on>  BitPay sure would like to see CPFP in upstream.
>
> I think the main hurdle to merging was that various people disagreed
> on various edge case handling and implementation details, but no
> fundamental objections.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>> On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>>> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr
>>> >
>>> > These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.
>>>
>>> #3242: Autoconf improvements needs rebase, and comment from jgarzik and
>>> me
>>> taken into account (about -enable-frontends=).
>>
>> I'll try to get this done over the weekend.
>>
>>> The others appear to be more controversial as they affect
>>> mining/consensus.
>>> I'd really like to see ACKs from more reviewers and testers there
>>> before
>>> merging.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this? I can see how Proposals might, if buggy,
>> affect
>> consensus, but the rest shouldn't. I don't think there's anything
>> controversial in any of these (does someone disagree with CPFP?).
>>
>> Luke
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>





 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-18  8:11         ` Odinn Cyberguerrilla

  2014-01-18 11:28             ` Odinn Cyberguerrilla
  2014-01-18 17:38             ` Mark Friedenbach
  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-01-18 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Odinn Cyberguerrilla;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 689 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla <
odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net> wrote:

> <ABISprotocol hat: on>
>
> regarding:
> stuff not getting into blockchain in a day's time,
> microdonations not facilitated as much as they could be,
>

Please point to your pull requests improving these issues.

If your organization didn't contribute anything to further these issues
then there can't be much surprise that they didn't make it in, either.

that would be:
>
> very bad
> much news
> such fail
>
> Seriously, that would not be so good.
>
> Hope I made you laugh a bit
>

So it's more like a jester's hat then :)
How did I end up on the dogecoin-development list?!?

Wladimir

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1455 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-18 11:05           ` Wladimir

  2014-01-18 17:38             ` Mark Friedenbach
  
From: Odinn Cyberguerrilla @ 2014-01-18 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wladimir;  Bitcoin Dev

clarification, I am not a doge dev.  It was intended just as a joke, to
make you laugh.

regarding pull requests improving these issues I am under the impression
that the developers will take care of what needs to be taken care of in
that regard.  Am presently in collaboration on a bitcoin project that may
implement aspects of the ABIS concept as presented, but it is in very very
early stage(es).

I hope you had a good laugh, that was my intent. good morning / afternoon
/ evening

> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla <
> odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net> wrote:
>
>> <ABISprotocol hat: on>
>>
>> regarding:
>> stuff not getting into blockchain in a day's time,
>> microdonations not facilitated as much as they could be,
>>
>
> Please point to your pull requests improving these issues.
>
> If your organization didn't contribute anything to further these issues
> then there can't be much surprise that they didn't make it in, either.
>
> that would be:
>>
>> very bad
>> much news
>> such fail
>>
>> Seriously, that would not be so good.
>>
>> Hope I made you laugh a bit
>>
>
> So it's more like a jester's hat then :)
> How did I end up on the dogecoin-development list?!?
>
> Wladimir
>





 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17 21:04         ` Mark Friedenbach

  
From: Jouke Hofman @ 2014-01-18 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

We rebroadcast incoming transactions without fees at several nodes,
including bc.info, to keep them in mempools.

On 01/17/2014 10:04 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> CPFP is *extremely* important. People have lost money because this 
> feature is missing. I think it's critical that it makes it into
> 0.9
> 
> If I get a low-priority donation from a blockchain.info wallet,
> that money can disappear if it doesn't make it into a block in 24
> hours - bc.i will forget the transaction and happily respend its
> inputs on the next transaction that user makes.
> 
> I wouldn't mind paying $1 in fees to receive a $50 donation. But 
> without CPFP there's no way to do that.
> 
> 
> On 01/17/2014 12:53 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> <vendor hat: on>  BitPay sure would like to see CPFP in
>> upstream.
> 
>> I think the main hurdle to merging was that various people 
>> disagreed on various edge case handling and implementation
>> details, but no fundamental objections.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For 
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In
> Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. 
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>
> 
_______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list 
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS2mbQAAoJEIilnEpWGBYhH+8H/2nIZjrrZIPi/4ZeTi71cZOe
78oD4mzWM9zvRbjbGfIWrgTnkRQi4OQ/GorbRiyoAeKzAQ+SdeY8dkRsS14zpqpC
w4efoJOTxgi69giBWGPWlPvAtTwD65EcfJmUs5XeGi7J/3E0qTyry6sDu8t2ip84
hLUnqMOcNhc0J/k0KvBbEyl1YXcRWMjz5X2pMtY9yeMk+qFQPR1+RjZ+91OCRyui
Z47jhHlbhc5daXAWrq4fb54uNSJWUnYky7yN2pDTovAVq5PNNVNJTdxbjXSyYmcP
FwFNkARrgXRlSvf07FN991aa2u4CTkjRgA9uRrvcTtLXr8g2F0yymfPr0AQrgZg=
=J9Z4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-18 11:05           ` Wladimir
  2014-01-18 11:28             ` Odinn Cyberguerrilla

  2014-01-19  2:53               ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Mark Friedenbach @ 2014-01-18 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

On 01/18/2014 03:05 AM, Wladimir wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla
> 
>     <ABISprotocol hat: on>
> 
>     regarding:
>     stuff not getting into blockchain in a day's time,
>     microdonations not facilitated as much as they could be,
> 
> Please point to your pull requests improving these issues.
> 
> If your organization didn't contribute anything to further these issues
> then there can't be much surprise that they didn't make it in, either.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-18 17:38             ` Mark Friedenbach

  2014-01-19 10:24                 ` Wladimir
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2014-01-19  2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Friedenbach;  Bitcoin Dev

There's a reason why luke-jr's pull request for CPfP remains open.
There is general agreement that it appears to be useful.  CPfP works
to close the mismatch between how bitcoin transaction fees are
attached by the sender, versus modern economic situations where the
receiver is willing to pay a fee.


On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize•io> wrote:
> On 01/18/2014 03:05 AM, Wladimir wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla
>>
>>     <ABISprotocol hat: on>
>>
>>     regarding:
>>     stuff not getting into blockchain in a day's time,
>>     microdonations not facilitated as much as they could be,
>>
>> Please point to your pull requests improving these issues.
>>
>> If your organization didn't contribute anything to further these issues
>> then there can't be much surprise that they didn't make it in, either.
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-19  2:53               ` Jeff Garzik

  2014-01-23 11:10                   ` Wladimir
  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-01-19 10:24 UTC ( / )
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev



On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com> wrote:

> There's a reason why luke-jr's pull request for CPfP remains open.
>


> There is general agreement that it appears to be useful.  CPfP works
> to close the mismatch between how bitcoin transaction fees are
> attached by the sender, versus modern economic situations where the
> receiver is willing to pay a fee.
>

The only thing controversial are the code changes themselves, not the
feature.

Consensus running through the comments in the pull is that it needs
(auto)tests.

Are you going to do this Luke? Or is anyone else working on this?

Wladimir
2014-01-19 10:24                 ` Wladimir

  
From: Wladimir @ 2014-01-23 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 376 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail•com> wrote:

> Consensus running through the comments in the pull is that it needs
> (auto)tests.
>
> Are you going to do this Luke? Or is anyone else working on this?
>

*crickets*

Anyone willing to give pull #1647 its final push by addressing the
comments, so that it can be integrated in the 0.9 release?

Wladimir

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 866 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]