Skip to content
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

[Docs] First-draft release notes for 0.11.2RC1 #6968

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 9, 2015

Conversation

harding
Copy link
Contributor

@harding harding commented Nov 8, 2015

FIXMEs:

  • This mentions that a new libblkmaker is needed but has FIXME for the version number. (@luke-jr knows about this via IRC)
  • @petertodd and @maaku should really review the sections, respectively, about CLTV and BIP113 as my descriptions of them are probably flawed.
  • Additional contributions and security research doesn't mention anyone specifically; if it should, please tell me who or update yourself at merge time.

Please feel free to make any other changes at merge time.

For reference, I generated the commit-level changelog from here: v0.11.1...v0.11.2rc1

And to make sure I didn't miss anything, I documented everything but the merge commits. Here's the complete changelog in the same order as that compare link above. Commits in bold are the ones I omitted from this pull because they didn't seem to affect behavior. (Commits not in bold are included in these notes.)

- Revisions to text as proposed by Greg Maxwell
- Add Btcdrak to contributors for backporting bitcoin#6884
- Fix spelling mistake

[ci skip]
@harding
Copy link
Contributor Author

harding commented Nov 8, 2015

929b2c7 implements the changes suggested by @gmaxwell (with some minor copyedits) and adds @btcdrak to the credits for his work backporting #6884

I'll be happy to squash once the FIXMEs are addressed (or feel free to squash at merge time).

@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Nov 8, 2015

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that a bug which caused frequent database corruption on Windows was fixed?

@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Nov 8, 2015

@gmaxwell
Copy link
Contributor

gmaxwell commented Nov 8, 2015

@sipa Yea, the leveldb fix change is big news for a lot of people. Unfortunately we don't have the AV robustness (chainstate obfsucation) so we can't say that ALL known common sources of corruption on windows are gone.

@harding
Copy link
Contributor Author

harding commented Nov 8, 2015

Commit 98d77c5 links to @sipa's graphs and adds a note about the Level DB change to the Notable changes section.

**Notice to miners:** Bitcoin Core’s block templates are now for
version 4 blocks only, and any mining software relying on its
getblocktemplate must be updated in parallel to use libblkmaker either
version FIXME or any version from FIXME onward.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need a release version from @luke-jr for libblkmaker and replace FIXME

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@btcdrak agreed. This is listed in the FIXME checklist at the top of the PR.

Copy link
Member

@sipa sipa Nov 8, 2015 via email

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, that makes more sense. I'll update it. Thanks.

@petertodd
Copy link
Contributor

ACK the BIP65 and BIP113 notes.

IMO you did a better job describing the changes then I did in git master; we should probably consider copying your text when we're closer to releasing v0.12.0

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Nov 9, 2015

Thanks for doing this!

It's a bit unfortunate that #6825 (as well as #6707) doesn't refer to the individual original pull numbers of the backported fixes. This confuses my administration - and referring to a pull like "backport fixes" in the release notes isn't that useful. But we can live with that, better next time.

@sipa Yea, the leveldb fix change is big news for a lot of people. Unfortunately we don't have the AV robustness (chainstate obfsucation) so we can't say that ALL known common sources of corruption on windows are gone.

It's not that I didn't try: #6919. But it was to controversial for a backport apparently.

@laanwj laanwj added the Docs label Nov 9, 2015
@gmaxwell
Copy link
Contributor

gmaxwell commented Nov 9, 2015

@laanwj Indeed, I was mostly pointing out that there is one known common remaining source of corruption for harding's benefit, and not in any way attempting to impugn the incredible work you've done.

@laanwj laanwj merged commit 9149589 into bitcoin:0.11 Nov 9, 2015
laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 9, 2015
9149589 [docs] 0.11.2 release notes: add sipa graphs & leveldb note (David A. Harding)
929b2c7 [docs] Minor revisions to 0.11.2RC1 release notes (David A. Harding)
40941d9 [Docs] First-draft release notes for 0.11.2RC1 (David A. Harding)
@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Nov 9, 2015

Went ahead and merged this so that there are some release notes in the repository to refer to in my announcement, feel free to improve this later

@harding
Copy link
Contributor Author

harding commented Nov 9, 2015

@laanwj I can dig up the the original information on the backported fixes. Can you clarify how you usually present that information? For example, if the original PR is 1111, the original commit is aaaaaaa, the backport PR is 9999, and the backport commit is fffffff, how would you like that information presented:

  • (what we have now) #9999 fffffff Commit title
  • (all original info) #1111 aaaaaaa Commit title
  • (original PR/backport commit) #1111 fffffff Commit title
  • (all the info) #1111 aaaaaaa (#9999 fffffff) Commit title

@btcdrak
Copy link
Contributor

btcdrak commented Nov 9, 2015

what about the FIXME version numbers for libblkmaker?

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Nov 9, 2015

@harding Usually there would be no backport PR, as I cherry-pick them straight into the branch. If there is one, and you have the real PR number available, I'd say link that instead of the backport PR.

@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants