Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-01-17 📝 Original message:On Friday, January 17, ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-01-17
📝 Original message:On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> 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
📝 Original message:On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> 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