On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
One process is asking getinfo every second as a fallback to possibly
misconfigured blocknotify. It also calls getblocktemplate every 30 second.
getinfo does a bunch of stuff; with 0.9 you will be able to use
getbestblockhash
Upon looking at the 0.8.5 earlier code for CDB:Rewrite(), in the
files db.h and db.cpp, you will notice that in db.h it is declared
bool static, but in db.cpp it isn't. Is this a problem? Or a feature?
Or nothing at all?
It is perfect C++ code.
Furthermore, it is called only in wallet.cpp
Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of
commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things.
Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things.
I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces of
work for review, please
On Friday 04 October 2013 12:30:07 Mike Hearn wrote:
Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of
commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things.
Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things.
I'd like to make a small request - when
There is more to a git branch than just the overall difference. Every
single
log message and diff is individually valuable.
When the log messages don't accurately describe the contents of the diff,
it's just misinformation and noise. Everyone starts out by wanting a neat
collection of easy
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 11:42:29AM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
On Friday 04 October 2013 12:30:07 Mike Hearn wrote:
Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of
commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things.
Unfortunately, code review is not one
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:30:07PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of
commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things.
Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things.
I'd like to make a small request - when
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
When I'm reviewing multiple commit pull-requests and want to see every
change made, I always either click on the Files Changed tab on github,
which collapses every commit into a single diff, or do the equivalent
with git
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:58:51PM +0200, Arto Bendiken wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
The second caveat is more specific to Bitcoin: people tend to rebase
their pull-requests over and over again until they are accepted, but
that also means that
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:14:19PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
One advantage of using github is that they're an independent third
party; we should think carefully about the risks of furthering the
impression that Bitcoin development is a closed process by moving the
code review it to a server
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
The second caveat is more specific to Bitcoin: people tend to rebase
their pull-requests over and over again until they are accepted, but
that also means that code review done earlier doesn't apply to the later
code pushed.
On Friday 04 October 2013 13:32:47 you wrote:
There is more to a git branch than just the overall difference. Every
single
log message and diff is individually valuable.
When the log messages don't accurately describe the contents of the diff,
it's just misinformation and noise.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
RE: running into the maximum-of-4-keepalive-requests : simple workaround is
to run with -rpcthreads=11 (or however many keepalive connections you need
to support). I agree that the rpc code should be smarter; making
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces
of work for review, please either submit it as one giant squashed change,
or be an absolute fascist about keeping commits logically clean and
separated.
14 matches
Mail list logo