On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > On Sunday, October 26, 2014 7:57:12 AM Wladimir wrote: >> Let me know if there is anything else you think is ready (and not too >> risky) to be in 0.10. > > At the very least, we need: > #5106 Bugfix: submitblock: Use a temporary CValidationState to determine ... > #5103 CreateNewBlock and miner_tests: Also check generated template is ... > #5078 Bugfix: CreateNewBlock: Check that active chain has a valid tip ... > (or at least some conclusion for the problem discussed therein)
OK > Harmless/No reason not to have: > #3727 RPC: submitblock: Support for returning specific rejection reasons > #1816 Support for BIP 23 block proposal > #5144 Qt: Elaborate on signverify message dialog warning > #5071 Introduce CNodePolicy for putting isolated node policy code and ... > (futher commits exist that should ideally get in after this is merged) ACK on the UI change, I think it would be best to let the full-blown "miner policy class" wait for 0.11. > Debatable (but harmless, and miners seem to want it): > #5077 Enable customising node policy for datacarrier data size with a ... OK, that's a low-risk change, it just makes what is now a constant configurable. Wladimir ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
