Alex,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Alex Waters <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:ampedal@gmail.com">ampedal@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hey John,<div><br></div><div>It could be as simple as listing some things that you think could possibly break if qt is implemented. For example, &quot;check the UI for artifacts&quot;. I don&#39;t really know what could potentially need to be tested, so any help would get things processed faster. </div>

<div><br></div><div>I can&#39;t acknowledge a pull unless there is substantial evidence that it&#39;s been tested, especially something of this size...</div></blockquote><div><br>It has been under development for a long time, the thread on the bitcointalk forum is &quot;substantial evidence&quot; that many people are using it (also, I receive quite a lot of mail about it, and the number of followers on github steadily fluctuates around ~30).  So nothing obvious is broken, at least, I think has worked better than the Wx UI for quite a while.<br>
<br>But as I&#39;ve said before I&#39;m fine with keeping bitcoin-qt as a parallel, experimental, release for a while.  I think that&#39;s the only way to get more testing with people that don&#39;t want to or can&#39;t build from source (could just mark the download as &quot;New GUI, experimental&quot; or so...).<br>
<br>To be honest I think it should be merged at least as experimental ASAP, it would save a lot of GUI complaints on the forum about things I&#39;ve implemented months ago already. However I will only put up a pull request as soon as it is clear that it will actually be integrated. It is too much work for me to keep the pull request up-to-date if it lingers for months like many others have.<br>
<br>JS<br><br></div></div>