From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W4EMU-0006gI-6z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:41:46 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1W4EMS-0006nM-Fu for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:41:46 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6D1E108083E; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:41:58 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Wladimir Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:41:36 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.6-gentoo; KDE/4.11.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <201401161523.38623.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201401171841.37790.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1W4EMS-0006nM-Fu Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule 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: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:41:46 -0000 On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr 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