Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-09-19 🗒️ Summary of this message: Developers ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-09-19
🗒️ Summary of this message: Developers discuss the idea of creating a stable branch for Bitcoin to provide bug fixes with minimal changes and fewer risks of introducing new bugs.
📝 Original message:On Monday, September 19, 2011 8:49:08 AM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > If we prepare the git repository + tags, would you guys be
> > willing to make the actual release builds + source, and/or post such on
> > the websites you administrate?
> > Luke and various others in #bitcoin-stable
>
> My initial reaction is no. Testing and bug-fixing is the bottleneck
> for making core bitcoin better, and maintaining two release lines
> won't make that better.
>
> I also think that until we get to a "1.0" that we can all agree is
> ready for everybody AND their grandma to use, using the word "stable"
> would be dishonest.
The problem with the current development model is that bugfixes are done
alongside improvements, and code changes *always* have the potential to
introduce new bugs, no matter how careful anyone is. So to stay on top of
bugfixes right now implies risking new bugs being introduced. What good is
getting one bug fixed, if it comes with 20 new yet-to-be-discovered bugs?
For example, 0.3.20.2 was the last version if bitcoind before people started
experiencing random (albeit rare) deadlocks. However, there have been many
bugfixes since then. Since there is no stable branch, someone who wishes to
get those bugfixes is forced to either create their own stable branch from
scratch, or risk getting all the new bugs introduced in the latest version
(most of which are unknown at this time).
On the other hand, a stable 0.4.x branch can provide people with upgrades
which they know make only the minimal changes required to fix bugs with a much
smaller risk of new bugs being introduced (not only are there fewer changes,
but bugfixes tend to also be less invasive changes). While there are arguably
still various "must-have" features missing from 0.4, having a stable branch
also allows people to maintain a stable+<feature I need> branch with greater
ease too.
🗒️ Summary of this message: Developers discuss the idea of creating a stable branch for Bitcoin to provide bug fixes with minimal changes and fewer risks of introducing new bugs.
📝 Original message:On Monday, September 19, 2011 8:49:08 AM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > If we prepare the git repository + tags, would you guys be
> > willing to make the actual release builds + source, and/or post such on
> > the websites you administrate?
> > Luke and various others in #bitcoin-stable
>
> My initial reaction is no. Testing and bug-fixing is the bottleneck
> for making core bitcoin better, and maintaining two release lines
> won't make that better.
>
> I also think that until we get to a "1.0" that we can all agree is
> ready for everybody AND their grandma to use, using the word "stable"
> would be dishonest.
The problem with the current development model is that bugfixes are done
alongside improvements, and code changes *always* have the potential to
introduce new bugs, no matter how careful anyone is. So to stay on top of
bugfixes right now implies risking new bugs being introduced. What good is
getting one bug fixed, if it comes with 20 new yet-to-be-discovered bugs?
For example, 0.3.20.2 was the last version if bitcoind before people started
experiencing random (albeit rare) deadlocks. However, there have been many
bugfixes since then. Since there is no stable branch, someone who wishes to
get those bugfixes is forced to either create their own stable branch from
scratch, or risk getting all the new bugs introduced in the latest version
(most of which are unknown at this time).
On the other hand, a stable 0.4.x branch can provide people with upgrades
which they know make only the minimal changes required to fix bugs with a much
smaller risk of new bugs being introduced (not only are there fewer changes,
but bugfixes tend to also be less invasive changes). While there are arguably
still various "must-have" features missing from 0.4, having a stable branch
also allows people to maintain a stable+<feature I need> branch with greater
ease too.