Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • 19:11

    antiochp on master

    cleanup redundant sync_head and… (compare)

  • 19:11
    antiochp closed #3556
  • 17:02

    antiochp on master

    Prune list iterators (#3574) *… (compare)

  • 17:02
    antiochp closed #3574
  • 16:26
    antiochp edited #3574
  • 16:25
    antiochp synchronize #3574
  • 16:17

    antiochp on master

    optimization for reading peak h… (compare)

  • 16:17
    antiochp closed #3575
  • 15:12
    antiochp synchronize #3556
  • 15:04

    antiochp on master

    replace subtree with pruned roo… (compare)

  • 15:04
    antiochp closed #3576
  • 14:37
    antiochp edited #3574
  • 14:36
    antiochp edited #3574
  • 14:32
    antiochp opened #3576
  • 14:22
    antiochp opened #3575
  • 12:29
    antiochp ready_for_review #3574
  • 10:08
    antiochp commented #3572
  • 09:47
    antiochp closed #3561
  • 09:47
    antiochp commented #3561
  • 09:40
    antiochp edited #3574
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
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
and no new features. Yes, I was bitten by 'just a small change' as recently as the 2.1.0 release as well
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
sync stuff should be fixed if we can wing it though - we've seen enough "locked up sync at step 6/7" for it to be an issue across a large number of nodes
lehnberg
@lehnberg

sync stuff should be fixed if we can wing it though

agree

Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
I just ran 3 successful sync in a row though with a combination of the two PRs up, so I think we have a fix with relatively minor changes involved
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Okay, so think we're agreed here? Sync fixes necessary, TUI up to @antiochp 's judgement, nothing else?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
and beta2 is the working assumption release candidate?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
yes
lehnberg
@lehnberg
ie if all goes well and the roof does not blow up, that's the one
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
:+1:
lehnberg
@lehnberg
🚀
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
And we can branch when it's built
lehnberg
@lehnberg
ah right... for >3.0.0?
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
yes
lehnberg
@lehnberg
sounds good to me
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
already need a place to throw the stuff I'm working on into post 3.0.0, sure others are the same
lehnberg
@lehnberg
do we still believe beta2 could be Thursday?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
only node changes for beta.2 or is there wallet changes also?
I'd like to aim for end of day today for the node changes (not necessarily to build beta.2 but just to have them merged in)
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
so aiming for Thursday okay?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
I think so yeah
ideally we have a few nodes running on master having done a full sync successfully between now and Thurs
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
okay
sorry, gitter is being gitter a bit here so not seeing all messages immediately
moving on packaging repo status update @quentinlesceller
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
(and it gives me some time tomorrow to focus on changelog etc.)
lehnberg
@lehnberg

Quentin wrote:

Regarding the package thing we have created a repo with @JosephGoulden and Joseph added the ubuntu snap there https://github.com/mimblewimble/packaging. Future work would be to find a way to automate this for each release or at the very least have a check list somewhere with all the tasks required. I'd be also in favor of adding choco, ubuntu and debian (apt) if possible though I'm not very familiar with the process.

Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Okay, think that's moving along anyhow, we can come back to it in more detail at a later date
hrm.... are we genuinely in the mood for a project focus discussion right now?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
suspect very little will be done on this until post 3.0.0