0.0.9 UI

[zathras-crypto]

Contains various bits that got layered - sorry about that all.
I have one issue that I still haven't been able to narrow down, and that's randomly the GUI will not display at startup after init maybe one out of five times - can anyone replicate?

[zathras-crypto]

Not sure where it comes from, but maybe you could add your branch on a more up-to-date version of mscore?

This PR should be based off 0.0.9 branch, and it should be up to date (a git pull from parent gives me an 'already up to date'). The only other branch I could base it on is 0.0.10 but we're not ready for that yet.

[dexX7]

Thanks for the merge @zathras-crypto. For the reader: zathras and I continued the discussion via email.

I have tested and reviewed this branch in detail, both on Ubuntu and Windows and it's stable and ready to merge, in my opinion. @m21

[m21]

Gotta take this in sooner rather than later for sure.
But @zathras-crypto this is not the right branch, you know? It's gotta be in https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/mastercore/tree/omnicore-0.0.10
sorry...

[zathras-crypto]

Huh? Plan was always to release UI after STO as 0.0.9.1 - merging to
0.0.10 means the UI release is waiting for MetaDEx? Think there will be
some unhappy campers if you tell Craig & co they cant have a UI until
0.0.10 drops :(

Can you please rethink mate?

Thanks
Z
On 08/02/2015 1:01 AM, "Michael" notifications@github.com wrote:

Gotta take this in sooner rather than later for sure.
But @zathras-crypto https://github.com/zathras-crypto this is not the
right branch, you know? It's gotta be in
https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/mastercore/tree/omnicore-0.0.10
sorry...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#243 (comment)
.

[dexX7]

I think don't understand that versioning scheme... or maybe I do: how about you increase the second last digit for consensus breaking updates and the last one for anything else? Say for example:

0.8     smart properties (or so)
0.9     send-to-owners
0.9.1   first UI update
0.9.2   second UI update
0.10    DEx phase 2
0.10.1  RPC extensions
0.11    something-else-I-just-made-up

Anyway, I do not approve a plan where the UI update is held back until DEx phase 2, especially given the earlier delays, which were seemingly justified with actually unrelated issues (missing LOCK, conflicting unconfirmed transactions after start, ...), as it turned out, as well as the announcement on Jan 31:

The team just finished tagging 0.0.9, which enabled Send-to-Owners (proportional distribution to holders) on mainnet. The live block height for this feature is in approximately two weeks. We should have the Windows UI for 0.0.9 out next week, and around 3-4 weeks after that we believe the DEx phase II will be tested and ready in version 0.0.10. If we target everything correctly, the live block height for DEx phase II should be around March 15th.

[zathras-crypto]

FYI versioning scheme:

0.0.x.y
X being branch - each branch will carry a new feature (9 was STO, 10 will be MetaDEx)
Y being minor - no new features or consensus affecting changes

Each X (branch) release requires everyone to upgrade and must be a well managed release.
Each Y (minor) release does not require previous clients of same branch to upgrade.

TL:DR; we can do as many 0.0.9.x as we like, as long as none of them impact consensus (because then older versions of 0.0.9 are not required to upgrade).

That was my intention when I put in that mastercore_version stuff, apologies if I didn't communicate that well. The UI is non-consensus affecting and thus I thought it had all been agreed to do UI as 0.0.9.1?

Thanks
Z

[dexX7]

Nice, this sounds as it should be, in my opinion.

Maybe it would make sense to have a third category for non-backwards compatible API/RPC changes, which are not consensus breaking at the same time, say send_MP gets replaced byomni->send or so.

[m21]

Thanks guys, after a chat with Zathras it makes sense to pull non-consensus changing UI-code into 9 and into 10 at the same time.
(For the future 9.1 tag I think).
But most other things should start going into 10 now.

[dexX7]

Pew. Happy "to get rid" of this mega thread finally. :) Thanks @m21.

[zathras-crypto]

Yep :) Think next stage is to do some builds (preferably gitian) and pop the bins out internally, if no objections/bugs raised then tag 0.0.9.1?

EDIT: when I say internally, I mean so we can test (eg I'll pop windows daemon up for Sean to consensus test against and so on)

[dexX7]

@zathras-crypto: I tested building for Windows via Gitian, involving some workarounds, see: #284. I'm going offline in a few minutes, but would be interested in working this one out. :)