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
Member

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.)

  • #6707 684636b Make CScriptNum() take nMaxNumSize as an argument
  • #6707 6ec08db Move LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD to src/script/script.h
  • #6707 4fa7a04 Replace NOP2 with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (BIP65)
  • #6707 6ea5ca4 Enable CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY as a standard script verify flag
  • #6707 5e82e1c Add CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (BIP65) soft-fork logic
  • #6707 c5a27f4 Add RPC tests for the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (BIP65) soft-fork
  • #6707 70a427b CLTV: Add more tests to improve coverage
  • #6707 ba1da90 Show softfork status in getblockchaininfo
  • 6707 6af25b0 Add BIP65 to getblockchaininfo softforks list

  • #6825 9b9acc2 Fix spelling of Qt
  • #6825 01878c9 Fix locking in GetTransaction
  • #6825 b3eaa30 [Qt] Raise debug window when requested
  • #6825 1e672ae Debian/Ubuntu: Include bitcoin-tx binary
  • #6825 2394f4d Debian/Ubuntu: Split bitcoin-tx into its own package
  • #6825 6fd0019 Drop "with minimal dependencies" from description
  • #6825 a33cd5b [trivial] Fix rpc message "help generate"
  • #6825 87a797a build: Remove dependency of bitcoin-cli on secp256k1
  • #6825 33d6825 Bugfix: Allow mining on top of old tip blocks for testnet
  • #6825 9e45157 build: disable -Wself-assign
  • #6825 bfc6154 [Trivial] Fixed typo when referring to a previous section in
  • #6825 54f9dee Update bluematt-key, the old one is long-since revoked
  • #6825 e42bf16 Clarification of unit test build instructions.
  • #6945 09a00a1 Add historical release notes for October 2015 bugfix releases
  • 6945 21e58b8 build: make sure OpenSSL heeds noexecstack

  • #6945 0720324 Make fee aware of min relay in pruning.py RPC test
  • #6825 4fbfebe Correct spelling mistakes in doc folder
  • #6825 7ce2c91 Update debian/changelog and slight tweak to debian/control
  • #6825 131d7f9 Change URLs to https in debian/control
  • 6825 af6edac alias -h for --help

  • 6945 95a5039 Set TCP_NODELAY on P2P sockets.

  • #6945 dfe55bd Do not allow blockfile pruning during reindex.
  • #6884 a1d3c6f Add rules--presently disabled--for using GetMedianTimePast as end point for lock-time calculations
  • 6884 f720c5f Enable policy enforcing GetMedianTimePast as the end point of lock-time constraints

  • 6917 0af5b8e leveldb: Win32WritableFile without memory mapping

  • 6945 70de437 Update LevelDB

  • 6948 4e895b0 Always flush block and undo when switching to new file

@gmaxwell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

gmaxwell commented on doc/release-notes.md in 40941d9 Nov 8, 2015

should be described as "bug fixes" and a consensus protocol revision or something like that. There are no new user facing features in this release. Any one else have other suggestions?

Or maybe "bug fixes, the BIP 65 (CLTV) consensus change, and relay policy preparation for BIP113.

@gmaxwell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

gmaxwell commented on doc/release-notes.md in 40941d9 Nov 8, 2015

This is fine, though it makes it sound like there is an actual supply of transactions that will be rejected. May is a bit confusing, as well.

"you will begin rejecting transactions that would not be valid under BIP113. This will prevent you from producing invalid blocks if/when BIP113 is enforced on the network. Any transactions which are valid under the current rules but not yet valid under BIP113 will either be mined by other miners or delayed until they are valid under BIP113, however time based locktime transactions are more or less unseen on the network currently."

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

[ci skip]
@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member 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

This comment has been minimized.

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

sipa commented Nov 8, 2015

@gmaxwell

This comment has been minimized.

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member 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.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@btcdrak

btcdrak Nov 8, 2015

Member

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@harding

harding Nov 8, 2015

Author Member

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@sipa

sipa via email Nov 8, 2015

Member

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@harding

harding Nov 8, 2015

Author Member

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

@harding harding force-pushed the harding:release-notes-0.11.2 branch Nov 8, 2015
@petertodd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

petertodd commented Nov 8, 2015

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

[ci skip]
@harding harding force-pushed the harding:release-notes-0.11.2 branch to 9149589 Nov 9, 2015
@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

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

This comment has been minimized.

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

This comment has been minimized.

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member 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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

btcdrak commented Nov 9, 2015

what about the FIXME version numbers for libblkmaker?

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.