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