📅 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
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 15:12:15
in reply to nevent1q…5hey
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsPublished at
2023-06-07 15:12:15Event JSON
{
"id": "d03f6a76c8a225b6e19a8713e6f3f3aa1f7623114c331468bc6b34725dd4889e",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686150735,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2554c52a67cb4c628dbda8a8971cb49eac1625e5569c8f7b46b77f379d8a9cce",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"26094bf8b374a407eca778e6d71b40bb3d3c04fc443e3977cb221cb407216502",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-17\n📝 Original message:On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44:09 AM Wladimir wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/luke-jr\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e These are pretty much all well-tested and stable for months now.\n\u003e \n\u003e #3242: Autoconf improvements needs rebase, and comment from jgarzik and me\n\u003e taken into account (about -enable-frontends=).\n\nI'll try to get this done over the weekend.\n\n\u003e The others appear to be more controversial as they affect mining/consensus.\n\u003e I'd really like to see ACKs from more reviewers and testers there before\n\u003e merging.\n\nCan you elaborate on this? I can see how Proposals might, if buggy, affect \nconsensus, but the rest shouldn't. I don't think there's anything \ncontroversial in any of these (does someone disagree with CPFP?).\n\nLuke",
"sig": "9755904e65e2c7da760f34c3c90ee49c6ffae35a5e0c40a0b19bd311e244065d43e73333bbea76c3ad835d820c99a30e96de93403ed51f268a8daebfd4e9f1e8"
}