New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

0.14.0 proposed release blog post #340

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Mar 8, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@harding
Contributor

harding commented Mar 1, 2017

This PR proposes a blog post to be used for the 0.14.0 release. A preview of the formatted blog post may be seen here: http://imgur.com/a/Jtkji

There are a few FIXMEs left:

  • Add final 0.14.0 release notes in appropriate file
  • Add final block height for assumed valid blocks to FIXME in this file
  • Update FIXME in the permalink URL to use the UTC release date
  • Add shasums for final release to FIXME in bottom of this file

Also, if I find some extra time before the release, I'd like to create a wiki page explaining assumed valid blocks and add a link to that in this PR as I suspect that some people might get confused about the difference between assumed valid blocks and checkpoints.

I know there were many more changes made in 0.14.0 than the ones described in this PR and I'm happy to try describing any ones ya'll think are important---just let me know. I just wanted to get this PR up ASAP so it could get some review in the seemingly-likely case that RC3 becomes the final release.

@harding harding added the blog label Mar 1, 2017

@morcos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@morcos

morcos Mar 1, 2017

Description of the BIP 152 changes isn't quite correct.
In 0.13.1 (or whenever we added BIP 152) we already were using High Bandwidth mode, we just weren't taking advantage of the ability to start the relay before validating the block. HB mode just refers to announcing via cmpctblock instead of announcing via headers and letting the peer request the cmpctblock. The change in 0.14 to relay before validation is still very significant however.

morcos commented Mar 1, 2017

Description of the BIP 152 changes isn't quite correct.
In 0.13.1 (or whenever we added BIP 152) we already were using High Bandwidth mode, we just weren't taking advantage of the ability to start the relay before validating the block. HB mode just refers to announcing via cmpctblock instead of announcing via headers and letting the peer request the cmpctblock. The change in 0.14 to relay before validation is still very significant however.

@molxyz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@molxyz

molxyz Mar 1, 2017

The blog post is great, except maybe the word "send" which should be "sends" in the first sentence of this paragraph: http://i.imgur.com/fvoYNj6.png ?

molxyz commented Mar 1, 2017

The blog post is great, except maybe the word "send" which should be "sends" in the first sentence of this paragraph: http://i.imgur.com/fvoYNj6.png ?

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Mar 1, 2017

Contributor

@morcos Thanks for clarifying! Commit 5018db4 should fix the problem. The revised section looks like this:

2017-03-01-12_26_21_819110617

Contributor

harding commented Mar 1, 2017

@morcos Thanks for clarifying! Commit 5018db4 should fix the problem. The revised section looks like this:

2017-03-01-12_26_21_819110617

harding added some commits Mar 1, 2017

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Mar 1, 2017

Contributor

@theuni commit d84d49c addresses your minor concerns (thanks!).

Everyone, including @theuni, commit 700b4b6 describes assumed valid blocks in more detail, including the fact that they don't lock the chain like checkpoints. I've pasted a screenshot of a preview of the section below for those who prefer to read formatted text.

@molxyz the text you're referring to was coincidentally changed in commit 5018db4 , which I think resolves your issue. Thank you for letting me know, though.

screenshot-127 0 0 1 4000 2017-03-01 16-00-29

Contributor

harding commented Mar 1, 2017

@theuni commit d84d49c addresses your minor concerns (thanks!).

Everyone, including @theuni, commit 700b4b6 describes assumed valid blocks in more detail, including the fact that they don't lock the chain like checkpoints. I've pasted a screenshot of a preview of the section below for those who prefer to read formatted text.

@molxyz the text you're referring to was coincidentally changed in commit 5018db4 , which I think resolves your issue. Thank you for letting me know, though.

screenshot-127 0 0 1 4000 2017-03-01 16-00-29

@btcdrak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@btcdrak

btcdrak Mar 7, 2017

Contributor

@harding: @laanwj said he was going to tag shortly.

Contributor

btcdrak commented Mar 7, 2017

@harding: @laanwj said he was going to tag shortly.

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Mar 7, 2017

Member

@harding: @laanwj said he was going to tag shortly.

Yep. Just tagged.

Great post!

Member

laanwj commented Mar 7, 2017

@harding: @laanwj said he was going to tag shortly.

Yep. Just tagged.

Great post!

harding added some commits Mar 7, 2017

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Mar 7, 2017

Contributor

Pushed commits to add the release notes, set the release date everywhere (to today), and to add the release assumedvalid block hash. The only TODO left is to add the release hashes into the file _posts/en/posts/2017-03-07-release-0.14.0.md , which can probably be done at merge time or after. Feel free to squash.

I've been using the RCs and so have already seen many of these nice improvements in action, so thank ya'll for all of your work on them!

Contributor

harding commented Mar 7, 2017

Pushed commits to add the release notes, set the release date everywhere (to today), and to add the release assumedvalid block hash. The only TODO left is to add the release hashes into the file _posts/en/posts/2017-03-07-release-0.14.0.md , which can probably be done at merge time or after. Feel free to squash.

I've been using the RCs and so have already seen many of these nice improvements in action, so thank ya'll for all of your work on them!

@btcdrak btcdrak merged commit 5080221 into bitcoin-core:gh-pages Mar 8, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

btcdrak added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 8, 2017

Merge #340: 0.14.0 proposed release blog post
5080221 0.14.0 release: rename final to correct date (David A. Harding)
c9eddb8 0.14.0 release: add final assumedvalid block hash (David A. Harding)
dee1869 0.14.0 release: add release notes (David A. Harding)
700b4b6 0.14.0 relase blog: describe assumed valid blocks in more detail (David A. Harding)
d84d49c 0.14.0 release blog: minor fixes (David A. Harding)
5018db4 0.14.0 blog: edits to compactblock section (David A. Harding)
d5f75f2 0.14.0 release blog post (David A. Harding)
@btcdrak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@btcdrak

btcdrak Mar 8, 2017

Contributor

Added commit hashes in 1536a4d

Contributor

btcdrak commented Mar 8, 2017

Added commit hashes in 1536a4d

@btcdrak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@btcdrak

btcdrak Mar 8, 2017

Contributor

@harding Again, thank you so much for stepping forward. It's always a pleasure and an incredible help.

Contributor

btcdrak commented Mar 8, 2017

@harding Again, thank you so much for stepping forward. It's always a pleasure and an incredible help.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment