Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qcoe8-0001zm-VY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:05:20 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-yi0-f47.google.com ([209.85.218.47]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Qcoe7-0007AQ-Us for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:05:20 +0000 Received: by yib18 with SMTP id 18so1984391yib.34 for ; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.129.10 with SMTP id g10mr4761643yhi.429.1309568714462; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from devo.home.jrbobdobbs.org (cpe-70-124-63-160.austin.res.rr.com [70.124.63.160]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v4sm2796106yhm.6.2011.07.01.18.05.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Doug References: <1309478838.3689.25.camel@Desktop666> <20110701080042.GA657@ulyssis.org> <1309524016.2541.0.camel@Desktop666> <1309567578.2541.26.camel@Desktop666> User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <1309567578.2541.26.camel@Desktop666> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Douglas Huff Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:05:19 -0500 To: Matt Corallo , bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1Qcoe7-0007AQ-Us 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 01:05:21 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 My only concern is: How well have the fixes in pull 358 been tested? Wasn't there an issue with the "" account found just last night? Matt Corallo wrote: >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. >> >> Wearing the Release Mangler hat, cherry-picked branches have a few >> disadvantages: >> >> * 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. >> >> 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. :) >> >> 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 >> >> 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. >> >> Comments welcome... >> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously >valuable. >Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, >security >threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and >makes >sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2_______________________________________________ >Bitcoin-development mailing list >Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development - -- Douglas Huff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: APG v1.0.8 iQIVAwUBTg5uzkPHkQabDWHPAQhEDRAAikf9NX06CSjHOKRdErIEgixHgrcUJk85 GuUxmTIm305WNdxswVDwXhPAqi9PBr5jPYgowp4/UoiYprNHN/s9pPwqNyMI3Urn SH7rXEA0yYuUU2b2VINY3cxHropu0cGH/EjXOXd+hDf6Dlf/lCsohz3BTcjUho4B 1esBTvhZngmEXaYSs5Hxd7CdbsJ8TVeib8aVGQN3GYc1H4I/MDFNpIsCVB0lAay2 93nczwFvkB/0KyU8vzua8atygdyGNTPWr0BOKvuJO39audokbZmpEREjLiqlIfxj 3MfcUZcOZ9or4Mq8Gq0ZLydpktKSKeZWpbpdzVEk/KQjz+zZhVZ+0jDj4FWIumcS sd7AdPpQAVVb5uG4ZnALI9V1gmfdXB+yxo7nKdHPCSOTaYwcbHu2+FI7PVlVlh/4 IgcRtZT2p4xoNeuDU+QBinuCDsCPq14f0zPhIo7ZCzs/ruV3Y9BtBS7Ez8FnXIRp yI06/AX9Bmw2DWBS5Jbu3u32osK1JWBdO9Hh1yVb+O1f9pqDPn7KYroqs4yAPZfx iz6OaQWtG5Zm+UjoLQiVhPA2cU2Zm42LywtbW3sxm+pmwEx91MeTFCioqOdkz9RI 4NxkaWOlAcXlpr/WX5QoYVcio9GR9AnIeO6h6p4ov0PPI2WqgobrYQbtjdnqxZXi Q12+wZuYiDo= =STlK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----