-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 152
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
Release/v1.10.0 core #30
Conversation
See rationale here: #29 (comment) Signed-off-by: meows <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: meows <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
VersionMinor = 9 // Minor version component of the current release | ||
VersionPatch = 11 // Patch version component of the current release | ||
VersionMinor = 10 // Minor version component of the current release | ||
VersionPatch = 1 // Patch version component of the current release |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This diff looks funny :D You have to see individual commits to see the reason :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
I'm going to merge this, but let's defer publishing the associated release; it will be better to release today or tomorrow a version v1.11.0 which includes the ECIP1088 Mordor, Kotti, and mayyyybbeeee Classic chain configs. |
why would you jump another version? |
This bumps the latest version number to v1.10.0, and unstable to v1.10.1 as discussed here and in referenced links:
My understanding is that this version bump reflects the ECIP1078 implementation as well as the renaming change. (And that unfortunately because of the Aztlan instability (EIP2200, et al) these changes weren't publishable since they wouldn't be "stable" for the testnets.) My plan was then to implement the necessary change set for ECIP1088 and tag and publish that release under v1.11.0 since it will (again) be a significant configuration "upgrade." Is this a misunderstanding? |
Supersedes and effectively replaces #29
For rationale, please see conversation at #29 (comment) and below.
Release notes draft
Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo (v1.10.0)
Implements ECIP1086. This specification is an allowance provisioning for ETC testnets Kotti and Mordor to continue to incorrectly implement EIP2200. Alternatively, the networks can be rolled back to a point prior to their implementation of EIP2200. There is not firm human consensus on this issue yet (via the Discussion-To link in ECIP1086). However, in balancing the needs to correctly implement things, to break as few things as possible, and to try to keep people on-board, we've decided to publish the ECIP1086 implementation "optimistically." This allows core-geth to not cause a fork on these testnets, and -- importantly -- does not preclude the option of rolling them back (in which case we'll simply remove the ECIP1086 feature as dead code).
As related above, implements the EIP2200 gas cost fix.
Implements ECIP1078 on ETC testnets Kotti and Mordor only. Similar in logic to above, this is a compromise between specification and implementation timelines (since
Last Call
period end is after activation on these testnets, see this PR for some discussion on this).And last but not least (as you may have already surmised 😉) renames the project to Core-Geth!
Assets uploaded via the following CI jobs: