Conversation
sanket1729
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, thanks for making the release notes with a good description. ACK 785be0e
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| We have more big changes coming down the pike. 2022 is going to be a big | ||
| year for `rust-bitcoin`, which we know is exciting for us but disruptive to | ||
| downstream users who ultimately want the library to just wark. Our hope is |
|
@apoelstra thank you for this wonderful change log, it looks like a huge work nobody was willing to do! ACK 785be0e We have just two PRs left with RC fixes (quite important bug in PSBT taptree with hidden nodes #929 + trivial but breaking API changes to method names #927). They went through multiple review rounds and looks completed. If you will have time to review we may get two ACKs today and merge pre-release. Otherwise feel free to release w/o them. |
Agree: they are just fixes to the previous PRs |
|
Ok I'll try to get 929 and 924 in tonight or tomorrow, before release. |
| are nowhere close. | ||
|
|
||
| Upcoming changes will include | ||
| - A quick new release which updates our MRSV from 1.29 to 1.41 and does little else |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Kixunil I know you would like to get some more breaking changes in related to Taproot and PSBT. Would it be ok if we bumped the MSRV first?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't remember which Taproot/PSBT breaking changes I wanted but yes, I do think bumping MSRV should be one of the first tasks. That being said, I suggest we try to merge as many open PRs first to minimize the churn. I'd rather redo semi-automated edition fixes than rebase all other PRs.
|
@apoelstra BTW I already used the current release downstream in my projects and tested quite advanced taproot scenarious, including full OP_RETURN taproot commitment implementation and complex miniscript-based script-path non-SIGHASH_ALL spendings with mutlsigs and timelocks on mainnet. Everything works fine; and the API is finally (after all RC fixes) covers all what is needed. |
|
BOOM! ACK 785be0e |
dr-orlovsky
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tACK: cb4d34f
spent taproot output on a script path spent which contained 1-of-3 multi_a + timelock https://blockstream.info/testnet/tx/62c5c416a5b26c1e4e6c30dff6497075f332b797c22ffa98e837f2e74a64c569?expand using current master at cb4d34f + rust-miniscript at 909f0a51c5881aafd731386a46d4756b30ee2c79 (from rust-bitcoin/rust-miniscript#337)
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
| - Don't allow hybrid EC keys [#829](https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/829) | ||
| - Change erroneous behavior for `SIGHASH_SINGLE` bug [#860](https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/860) [#897](https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/897) | ||
| - Delete the deprecated `contracthash` module [#871](https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/871); this functionality will migrate to ElementsProject/rust-elements | ||
| - Remove compilation-breaking feature-gated enum variants [#881](https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/881) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The wording of this sounds like the variants were removed while actually they are always present. Perhaps something like "Feature-gated enum variants are now always present but use placeholder types when features are disabled."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about "Remove compilation-breaking feature-gating of enum variants"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A bit simplistic (there's still feature gating but done differently) but sounds acceptable to me. :)
38f09d2
sanket1729
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
utACK 38f09d2. The diff from the previous ACKs is minor easy to review.
|
Can we ACK #927 before releasing? It's super simple and quite nice. |
|
Merged 927. Merged this. Tagged and publish. We have liftoff! |
See discussion here #941 about whether we want to cut the release now or do another slew of breaking changes between RCs.