Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule
16 messages, 16 to 23 Jan 2014. Started by Wladimir J. van der Laan.
Wladimir J. van der Laan (5), Luke Dashjr (3), Jeff Garzik (2), Mark Friedenbach (2), Odinn Cyberguerrilla (2), Warren Togami, Jouke Hofman
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
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:
Quoted text (32 lines)
> 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 > >
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:09:52 AM Wladimir wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)
> 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.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
Quoted text (5 lines)
> > 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
On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)
> 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.
Quoted text (3 lines)
> 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
<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:
Quoted text (31 lines)
> 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
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:
Quoted text (6 lines)
> <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 Friday, January 17, 2014 8:53:47 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
Quoted text (5 lines)
> <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
<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
Quoted text (62 lines)
> <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 >
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla < odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net> wrote:
Quoted text (6 lines)
> <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:
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > 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
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
Quoted text (31 lines)
> 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 >
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:
Quoted text (25 lines)
> 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.
Quoted text (6 lines)
> 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 > >
On 01/18/2014 03:05 AM, Wladimir wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)
> 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.
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:
Quoted text (26 lines)
> 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
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com> wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)
> 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
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (5 lines)
> 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