Thanks for the summary!

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> It seems to me, there is potentially enough ready to merge into 0.7 to
> start
> the RC process right away if someone wants to... except that the first
> merge
> will probably require rebasing everything else ;)
>

Yes, we have a lot of changes waiting already.


> Next up are some changes already ACK'd for 0.7: Hearn's "pong" message
> (#932)
> and Wladimir's Visual C++ 2010 fixes (#949). getmemorypool BIP
> standardization
> (#936) is also ACK'd, but it might be good to wait until later in the merge
> window considering its low impact and high potential for change as the BIP
> gets closer to Accepted status.
>

Agreed.


>
> any sort of high-volume bitcoind usage (such as solo mining). Some other
> optimizations by Joel such as the optimized ToHex function (#562) and
>

See my comments there; I'm all for optimizing the ToHex function, but I
prefer that he optimizes the current ToHex function not add yet another one
with an incompatible interface.

(we have the same problem with Error/Debug/"Log to console" functions, too
many of them and sometimes it's unclear what the difference is)


> Scott has a pull request for Bitcoin-Qt to behave more like other close-to-
> systray applications by toggling the hide/show action (#855). He's also
> contributed a patch to show miners' immature balances on the overview
> screen
> (#837; it leaves only a blank space for non-miners). Nils, on the other
> hand,
> has been working with a UI designer to totally remodel Bitcoin-Qt.
>

I also have some UI code changes ready, for example one to use notification
from the bitcoin core when the address book/transactions changed, instead
of a timer. Will submit pull requests soon.

Coderrr has rebased his Coin Control features (#415) to the latest version.
> These seem to be popular, so should probably be merged as soon as it's
> had proper review.
>

Agreed. It is very popular and should certainly be merged. And it has seen
quite some testing already. Though this will take some time to review, as
it is quite a large change.


> Finally, I don't know the status of Pieter's IPv6 support, but I hope it
> will
> be ready for 0.7. Right now all I see submitted for this is support for
> multiple local IPs (#829) though.
>
>
IPv6 support would be nice, but I don't think a milestone of 0.7 is
realistic. Such a change to the network code will require extensive
testing. Who has access to IPv6 and can help testing?

Wladimir