Re: Officially releasing Namecore
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:33 pm
fyi: namehistory for me made a difference of about 175MiB (@ height ~ 244737)
The first secure, decentralized, human-meaningful naming system.
https://forum.namecoin.org/
Sort of correct. There were just the binaries that were made for the OpenSSL consensus issue, but none were made since then, and Domob did a lot during that time. So new binaries should be made.phelix wrote:Do I understand the current status correctly that there are not Linux binaries yet?
I'm open for tagged commits (signed by me), but I think we need a "plan" to decide which ones to tag. I'm planning on branching off a "stable" version when Bitcoin does that for 0.12. For now, we could simply tag "one random" commit. We could also create a "0.11.9" (or something) branch for a release before that, but then people need to commit time testing that particular release. Should we do that?josephbisch wrote:We could use a tagged version on GitHub, so that we have some consistent commit to work off of for not only the various platforms, but also for the various builders building reproducibly.
Of course, there are both unit and regression tests in place. I actually run them before even pushing any changes, so that all published commits "should" be good with respect to them. For an official release, I would expect that actual users try the software out in the wild in addition. (Otherwise, everyone can just take the newest commit and run the unit tests instead of asking for releases.)erkan wrote:>but then people need to commit time testing that particular release. Should we do that?
Are there existing test plans/cases ?
My opinion is that releasing official Namecoin binaries that are not based on official Bitcoin release tags is sufficiently risky that we should avoid it. We did so for the OpenSSL consensus bug because it was an emergency, but we later found some nasty bugs in those binaries (wizkid from Eligius ran into problems with the wallet code and mining code, which Daniel traced to a bug in upstream Bitcoin master Git).domob wrote:I'm open for tagged commits (signed by me), but I think we need a "plan" to decide which ones to tag. I'm planning on branching off a "stable" version when Bitcoin does that for 0.12. For now, we could simply tag "one random" commit. We could also create a "0.11.9" (or something) branch for a release before that, but then people need to commit time testing that particular release. Should we do that?josephbisch wrote:We could use a tagged version on GitHub, so that we have some consistent commit to work off of for not only the various platforms, but also for the various builders building reproducibly.