Skip to content

Release/v1.9.10#29

Merged
meowsbits merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
release/v1.9.10
Feb 20, 2020
Merged

Release/v1.9.10#29
meowsbits merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
release/v1.9.10

Conversation

@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@meowsbits meowsbits commented Feb 19, 2020

This'll be the first release under the new core-geth namespace... we'll see how the CI does 🤞


Release notes draft

https://github.com/etclabscore/core-geth/releases

Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo (v1.9.10)

  • 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!

    • With significant development effort already invested (now approaching 800 commits ahead of our comrade and predecessor multi-geth/multi-geth), and an intention to continue growth, we think it's about the right time to fly our own flag. The aim is for this code base and the software it provides to continue serving ETC and entire Ethn ecosystem reliably and innovatively. We hope that renaming won't be a cause of political contention, but instead add another optimistic rallying point for configuration-freedom and an extensible, accessible Ethereum-as-protocol. 🚀

Signed-off-by: meows <b5c6@protonmail.com>
Signed-off-by: meows <b5c6@protonmail.com>
@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

👽 🍾 I think the CI passed and artifacts all uploaded. On the first try.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@eyfl eyfl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@soc1c
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

soc1c commented Feb 20, 2020

Would like to bump to 1.10.0 as discussed in #1 etclabscore/multi-geth-fork#153

@meowsbits meowsbits merged commit df35dec into master Feb 20, 2020
@meowsbits meowsbits deleted the release/v1.9.10 branch February 20, 2020 11:41
@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Oh shoot @soc1c -- I'm sorry! I didn't see your comment here (I merged and pushed from command line).

@soc1c
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

soc1c commented Feb 20, 2020

No worries. We can just author another release

@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

meowsbits commented Feb 20, 2020

So for the MINOR version bump rationale, are you thinking that the backwards-compatible functionality is the (re)name? (I can agree with that).

EDIT: Ah, I think I misunderstood; thinking now that you meant v1.10.0 with the "classic first" change, or?

@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

meowsbits commented Feb 20, 2020

Thinking about this... I think we should consider ECIP1078 implementation a backwards-compatible feature (as well as possilbly 1086 too), and thus we should actually tag the release v1.10.0.

@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

And since it coincides with the renaming and the associated "significance" of that, I think that resonates intuitively.

meowsbits added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2020
See rationale here: #29 (comment)

Signed-off-by: meows <b5c6@protonmail.com>
@meowsbits meowsbits mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2020
@soc1c
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

soc1c commented Feb 21, 2020

exactly :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants