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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R2gk5-0008FW-Vj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:54:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=witchspace81@gmail.com; helo=mail-yw0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1R2gk3-0001ga-OA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:54:25 +0000 Received: by ywf7 with SMTP id 7so4486ywf.34 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:54:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.196.18 with SMTP id t18mr430352ybf.349.1315734858187; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.107.13 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:54:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:54:18 +0000 Message-ID: From: John Smith To: Alex Waters Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd487ccd7429f04aca764c8 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (witchspace81[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (witchspace81[at]gmail.com) 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1R2gk3-0001ga-OA Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-qt ready for merging 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: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:54:26 -0000 --000e0cd487ccd7429f04aca764c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Alex, On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Alex Waters wrote: > Hey John, > > It could be as simple as listing some things that you think could possibly > break if qt is implemented. For example, "check the UI for artifacts". I > don't really know what could potentially need to be tested, so any help > would get things processed faster. > > I can't acknowledge a pull unless there is substantial evidence that it's > been tested, especially something of this size... > It has been under development for a long time, the thread on the bitcointalk forum is "substantial evidence" 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. But as I've said before I'm fine with keeping bitcoin-qt as a parallel, experimental, release for a while. I think that's the only way to get more testing with people that don't want to or can't build from source (could just mark the download as "New GUI, experimental" or so...). 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'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. JS --000e0cd487ccd7429f04aca764c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alex,

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Al= ex Waters <ampeda= l@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey John,

It could be as simple as listing some things t= hat you think could possibly break if qt is implemented. For example, "= ;check the UI for artifacts". I don't really know what could poten= tially need to be tested, so any help would get things processed faster.=A0=

I can't acknowledge a pull unless there is substant= ial evidence that it's been tested, especially something of this size..= .

It has been under development for a long time,= the thread on the bitcointalk forum is "substantial evidence" th= at 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).=A0 S= o nothing obvious is broken, at least, I think has worked better than the W= x UI for quite a while.

But as I've said before I'm fine with keeping bitcoin-qt as a p= arallel, experimental, release for a while.=A0 I think that's the only = way to get more testing with people that don't want to or can't bui= ld from source (could just mark the download as "New GUI, experimental= " or so...).

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've i= mplemented 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 wo= rk for me to keep the pull request up-to-date if it lingers for months like= many others have.

JS

--000e0cd487ccd7429f04aca764c8--