Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-07-05 🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-07-05
🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen disagrees that 0.3.24 needs certain pulls, stating that fixing downgrade-to-0.3.24 is low on the priority list.
📝 Original message:On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 22:26 -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I don't think 0.3.24 "needs" either of those pulls. Fixing
> downgrade-to-0.3.24 is low on the priority list, because
> downgrade-to-something-before-0.3.24 is just about as likely, and that
> has to do something mostly reasonable.
Really, well I disagree but OK, 0.3.24 it is.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110705/aa373173/attachment.sig>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen disagrees that 0.3.24 needs certain pulls, stating that fixing downgrade-to-0.3.24 is low on the priority list.
📝 Original message:On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 22:26 -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I don't think 0.3.24 "needs" either of those pulls. Fixing
> downgrade-to-0.3.24 is low on the priority list, because
> downgrade-to-something-before-0.3.24 is just about as likely, and that
> has to do something mostly reasonable.
Really, well I disagree but OK, 0.3.24 it is.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110705/aa373173/attachment.sig>;