Replies: 3 comments 10 replies
-
I am hoping the cleanup I did on psbt's Cargo.toml (e.g. feature flags) doesn't make this too painful, but I can start to compile a list of PR fixes and see how difficult it is to apply them even before the backport to 0.32. In general this plan sounds good to me though. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
4 replies
-
|
Would anyone be willing to get on a call and nut out how we can push this forward? Then it will be clear what to do with PRs like #5684 and #5738. @mpbagot, @nyonson, @nymius? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
5 replies
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
rust-psbt imported code from
rust-bitcoina while ago now so it is possibly out of sync. Furthermore #5684 is about to make it so.We have reached consensus that PSBT dev will move out of
rust-bitocin(andrust-miniscript) and intorust-psbt. This discussion is to work out exactly how.One idea:
psbtbug fixes on master to 0.32bitcoin v0.32psbtcode over torust-psbt(this means files are easily diffable so users can check our work)psbtmodule inrust-bitcoinon masterpsbt-v2 v0.2.1(i.e. a point release) .rust-bitcoinand one inrust-psbtthat users can use to diff the files.In (1) we will need to be careful that we don't loose any API breaking changed functionality that cannot be backported.
For completeness, what this achieves is:
bitcoin 0.32'spsbtmodule.psbt 0.2.1release as a drop in replacement.Then
rust-psbtdevs can march on as they see fit keeping0.2as the LTS that depends onbitcoin 0.32if needed (already discussed elsewhere).Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions