From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QcoM1-0001wJ-Ph for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:46:37 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me designates 208.79.240.5 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.79.240.5; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=smtpauth.rollernet.us; Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us ([208.79.240.5]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1QcoLz-0006yQ-Fz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:46:37 +0000 Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54825594003 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bluematt.me (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:2:20c:29ff:fe16:f239]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: @bluematt.me) by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:1:2c0:caff:fe33:858b] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:1:2c0:caff:fe33:858b]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70C3050C1 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 02:46:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Matt Corallo To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: References: <1309478838.3689.25.camel@Desktop666> <20110701080042.GA657@ulyssis.org> <1309524016.2541.0.camel@Desktop666> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-1bx1BR6gOH3Osz0CZhN+" Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 02:46:18 +0200 Message-ID: <1309567578.2541.26.camel@Desktop666> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Rollernet-Abuse: Processed by Roller Network Mail Services. Contact abuse@rollernet.us to report violations. Abuse policy: http://rollernet.us/abuse.php X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 4fd3.4e0e6a54.561e7.0 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1QcoLz-0006yQ-Fz Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.3.24 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:46:37 -0000 --=-1bx1BR6gOH3Osz0CZhN+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Personally, I have little preference, sipa and gmaxwell fall on the side of cherry-pick, but I think it might be good to do a broad-base test of CWallet in 0.3.24 so potential bugs can be found in it before crypto and 0.4. In either case, I dont think we should spend too much time as this is just a minor update release, just get it out the door so we can focus on 0.4 (hopefully) without interruption. Matt On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 20:37 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Hum, it sounds like there was some misunderstanding, on my part at > least. On IRC, people are talking about a cherry-picked release, > basically 0.3.23 + a couple specific fixes, rather than what is > current in upstream git. I had assumed people meant releasing current > git + some specific fixes not yet in git. >=20 > Wearing the Release Mangler hat, cherry-picked branches have a few > disadvantages: >=20 > * you're throwing away the testing people have done on upstream git > * the new branch would have zero testing, as most people have been > testing 0.3.23 or upstream git > * it would be a dead-end branch, never touched after release. bug > reports for such a release might not necessarily be applicable to last > version or current upstream or anywhere in between. >=20 > That is the convention wisdom, anyway. But to paraphrase Pirates of > the Caribbean, release management rules aren't really rules, they're > more like... guidelines. :) >=20 > The cherry-picked 0.3.24 release, according to IRC wisdom, wouldn't > have to worry about shipping CWallet, which needs a fix or two from > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/358 >=20 > I can live with, and roll a release for, either (a) 0.3.23 + select > fixes or (b) current upstream + pull #358. My preference is (b), but > this is a community and Holy Alpaca decision, not just a call I will > make on my own. >=20 > Comments welcome... >=20 --=-1bx1BR6gOH3Osz0CZhN+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJODmpQAAoJEBrh01BD4I5UnmQQANcSE/s2oiQuqRqcX3WNe+ON oEwbFsyVT0be/mEZFAHymdlbuq98E8jJQMmEq1MWss8NoILvTivTtxxOLesO1u24 DmEw+jApPGrpQtJjjVDrfGY7Gnbb2tA1qvMarNNk2e1m/rUwY6a7iXwApXouLJU0 NtW6WI8x7epVrJUV5Vplo49VUdopzTpdUt5ir9jDT7mN0NCjD+i87pK9HaFmyQcL zBLnwRIB/UkbzSKNGE/vz+k2B+OYWHxpy+FqN80zCNg00g6vibJHFzf7kV7lb6Rj /9rbqM0USPUw2Rzi7vkiPANZDtsPjwFkiQ2gePnHamqOUGA2oT+c2Uu/Xt/PdHfq P3FH2CSpD9PDhP8U9MQ5rDHkHbOv1s1x0mwxfLiHm98L6J8TZ+upWnRWzE+CvBqC 8/HUFsWQZv2Sjzmjz+JrDJhnlCv/fPTUPgFnvFvdpXlxolRQDPHCuAMX9xA/P6Tx p6a1HTIDBQ3Xrksd0hlwCe5vY3pEVY54/wvSL8a+A1YkVFu9EYi2bNZ5U4y8BA5H PRpbYQgLcb3ydG0dV+YXq6PsP06pgLgvESc18h3gIOsUTHahxti7FPV8eO9bcgi6 2PBa2Y7Ujvv/M4ZnxZswDgXF5FrvVwmAH82+mtOkD1P3W6P6r92pj931ljoOw2mu Lb0B8IMubLM//GAcAO+g =jfw/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-1bx1BR6gOH3Osz0CZhN+--