[Bitcoin-development] 0.7 merge recommendations/status
laanwj at gmail.com
Sat Mar 31 07:56:57 UTC 2012
Thanks for the summary!
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> It seems to me, there is potentially enough ready to merge into 0.7 to
> the RC process right away if someone wants to... except that the first
> will probably require rebasing everything else ;)
Yes, we have a lot of changes waiting already.
> Next up are some changes already ACK'd for 0.7: Hearn's "pong" message
> and Wladimir's Visual C++ 2010 fixes (#949). getmemorypool BIP
> (#936) is also ACK'd, but it might be good to wait until later in the merge
> window considering its low impact and high potential for change as the BIP
> gets closer to Accepted status.
> any sort of high-volume bitcoind usage (such as solo mining). Some other
> optimizations by Joel such as the optimized ToHex function (#562) and
See my comments there; I'm all for optimizing the ToHex function, but I
prefer that he optimizes the current ToHex function not add yet another one
with an incompatible interface.
(we have the same problem with Error/Debug/"Log to console" functions, too
many of them and sometimes it's unclear what the difference is)
> Scott has a pull request for Bitcoin-Qt to behave more like other close-to-
> systray applications by toggling the hide/show action (#855). He's also
> contributed a patch to show miners' immature balances on the overview
> (#837; it leaves only a blank space for non-miners). Nils, on the other
> has been working with a UI designer to totally remodel Bitcoin-Qt.
I also have some UI code changes ready, for example one to use notification
from the bitcoin core when the address book/transactions changed, instead
of a timer. Will submit pull requests soon.
Coderrr has rebased his Coin Control features (#415) to the latest version.
> These seem to be popular, so should probably be merged as soon as it's
> had proper review.
Agreed. It is very popular and should certainly be merged. And it has seen
quite some testing already. Though this will take some time to review, as
it is quite a large change.
> Finally, I don't know the status of Pieter's IPv6 support, but I hope it
> be ready for 0.7. Right now all I see submitted for this is support for
> multiple local IPs (#829) though.
IPv6 support would be nice, but I don't think a milestone of 0.7 is
realistic. Such a change to the network code will require extensive
testing. Who has access to IPv6 and can help testing?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev