Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • May 15 09:37
    bruges commented #3641
  • May 13 22:34
    GeneFerneau commented #3633
  • May 13 18:07

    quentinlesceller on master

    Spelling Improvements (#3642) … (compare)

  • May 13 18:07
    quentinlesceller closed #3642
  • May 13 18:07
    quentinlesceller commented #3642
  • May 13 13:42
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 04:59
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 04:58
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 03:36
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 03:26
    AlesioKanani synchronize #3642
  • May 13 03:17
    AlesioKanani synchronize #3642
  • May 13 03:11
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 03:11
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 03:11
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 03:10
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 03:10
    AlesioKanani edited #3642
  • May 13 01:31
    AlesioKanani synchronize #3642
  • May 13 01:23
    AlesioKanani opened #3642
  • May 11 15:39

    antiochp on master

    implement fix past fees RFC wit… (compare)

  • May 11 15:39
    antiochp closed #3629
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
we are still investigating (and attempting to resolve) some issues that we are seeing during sync
next milestones according to our timelines are code freeze Dec 12, and release candidate binaries on Dec 13
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
@antiochp I see that's ongoing anyhow, so we're likely looking at a beta.2 at some point anyhow, which leads to the next discussion as for scope of what we want to put into it
@antiochp I see that's ongoing anyhow, so we're likely looking at a beta.2 at some point anyhow, which leads to the next discussion as for scope of what we want to put into it
lehnberg
@lehnberg

In the planning issue,

I'm changing PoW issue to ✅

I'm changing Node API v2 to ✅
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Are we just looking at fixes or want to slip any changes in. The only thing I really have is packaging and verifying payment proofs, which is just surface-level stuff that shouldn't affect anything, but also happy to leave it till 3.0.1 if we decide against this kind of thing in general
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
@lehnberg 2 and 6 are both green now also
lehnberg
@lehnberg
great was just about to ask you!
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
:+1:
lehnberg
@lehnberg
@yeastplume - payment proof is fully implemented now?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
and sync stuff should be limited to minor fixes at this point
lehnberg
@lehnberg
did I dream there was some (minor) stuff missing?
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
all wallet stuff is green
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
@JosephGoulden has a couple of minor TUI fixes that I think there is consensus for getting into the next beta release (low risk fixes)
lehnberg
@lehnberg
oh yes it is
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Right, so if everyone's okay with a proof verification in the next release, (also low risk) I can get that in as well
lehnberg
@lehnberg
I mean...
we're meant to cut a release candidate in three days?
or is that timeline changing?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
24 hours of beta.2 or something
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
It's dependent on the sync issues for the most part, the other stuff is minor and can really wait if needed
what's a 'release candidate'?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
some eyes on mimblewimble/grin#3164 and mimblewimble/grin#3165 would be good to get the sync issues hopefully resolved
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
I mean, we don't do special RC builds, if it turns out everyone is happy with beta.2 that's the release candidiate
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Release Candidate is like "this is a version we think is good enough for final"
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
I meant in our context
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
yes I guess the assumption here is beta.2 is the RC (pending anything unexpected)
lehnberg
@lehnberg
And then it's out in the wild until our assumption is proven right
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Yes, I'm okay with the assumption beta.2 is the RC, until someone demonstrates any reasons why it shouldn't be
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
beta.1 is the RC currently given the fact we are doing a release for HF2
lehnberg
@lehnberg
oh I see. yeah I mean, generally, if you're doing bug fixes and release, there's a good chance you might get a release candidate if there's no regression
but if you add new functionality and release, you might get a release candidate, or you might get a list of bug fixes that you need to do
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
yes absolutely - last thing we want to do right now is add to the list of outstanding bugs
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Okay, so happy with saying no to new features as well
and just including any needed sync fixes
lehnberg
@lehnberg
I feel it's up to you guys as devs to agree on. I'm skeptical myself, but don't feel I've got a horse in the race
my opinions are as per the comment in the thread
https://github.com/mimblewimble/grin/pull/3161#issuecomment-563217208
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
I'm going to test the TUI changes though locally - they are limited enough in scope I think and give some tangible benefits (no new features)
one fixes a known panic in the tui for example
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Okay, look let's leave it at that then.
lehnberg
@lehnberg
but I'm not the one that's at risk of being stuck doing last minute troubleshooting & bug fixes over the holidays
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
And on the stuff I'm looking at I'm happy to have at least one definite feature add for 3.0.1
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
all that said - the TUI is usable right now, so I'm not entirely convinced by my own argument here
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
heh
lehnberg
@lehnberg
I used to be liberal with these things, but a couple of years of releasing turned me into ultra-conservative
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
... okay... Sync fixes + TUI fixes, since they're fixes they make sense to put in
lehnberg
@lehnberg
as I've heard enough "and you won't believe what happened next" war stories