Matches for patch, 1691 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Tue Jan 26 01:25:02 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> look in the ml for the patch for that.
Mon Jan 25 07:51:18 UTC 2016 <assbot> Logged on 25-01-2016 01:30:26; *: asciilifeform observes that this thread has already taken up more space than the patch.
Mon Jan 25 04:59:03 UTC 2016 <mod6> alright, the DER patch has been sent to the ML:
Mon Jan 25 03:29:52 UTC 2016 <mod6> hmm. so then, I believe if i remove the tabs from my S-patch and leave the spaces ~in~, then it'll look more like Mr. P.'s patch he put together.
Mon Jan 25 02:49:17 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> polarbeard: didja write a patch and i missed it reading the log ?
Mon Jan 25 02:20:16 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> oh ok, my bad. so what i was thinking here is : a) finish the patch ; b) do all the other stuff you were going to do in your own time ; c) when ready make a new version ; d) take a week off, during which everyone [who cares to] can write and run a script to / /
Mon Jan 25 02:19:53 UTC 2016 <mod6> But it probably would have been the last thing to go into the tree before a release patch.
Mon Jan 25 02:19:18 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> i guess i unwittingly confused you, sorry about that. the S-patch was not actually intended to mark a new release did it ?
Mon Jan 25 02:17:26 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> what's your current work on teh patch ?
Mon Jan 25 02:17:03 UTC 2016 <mod6> Ok sounds good mircea_popescu. I'll stop my current work on the high/low patch. I'll spend this week getting the changes [.wot in the pwd, and mechanical post-patch hash checking] in V [v99996] released. Then I'll immediately begin work on a re-alignment of all the patches we currently are distributing.
Mon Jan 25 02:10:55 UTC 2016 <ben_vulpes> perhaps fixing magic numbers is out of scope for a patch to force s-values?
Mon Jan 25 01:37:39 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> reading the proposed patch
Mon Jan 25 01:30:26 UTC 2016 <*> asciilifeform observes that this thread has already taken up more space than the patch.
Mon Jan 25 01:09:48 UTC 2016 <mod6> I'm prefectly happy to reconstruct the patch with spaces to stay in alignment with the current (albiet unwated) spacing scheme.
Mon Jan 25 00:54:09 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> as for prb, it doesn't like talking to trb (esp. with the malleus patch)
Sun Jan 24 10:59:12 UTC 2016 <phf> ben_vulpes: of course, that bsd patch doesn't stand in isolation. it was produced at a certain time, was since used by several people to build a version. but there's nothing to sign, because there's only pre-v patch
Sun Jan 24 10:53:37 UTC 2016 <phf> everything else in there is either cross platform clarification or straight up an #ifdef. it's a tiny ass patch, if it doesn't build on rotor, linux, etc. it's a bug in a patch
Sun Jan 24 10:41:45 UTC 2016 <phf> the ~only~ "script" aspect of the patch is "-Wl,--whole-archive -lpthread -Wl,--no-whole-archive" which is a cross platform gcc argument that ensure that pthread is truly fully statically linked into bitcoind. the issue that some parts of it don't appear consistently with openbsd gcc ~and also on some of the linux gcc versions~. fucking says so in the original email
Sun Jan 24 09:00:25 UTC 2016 <phf> mircea_popescu: ok, so i wouldn't say not welcome, but since neither patch was given a courtesy of a smooth transition, i assumed that neither are seen as particularly important. ???????? ????????? ???? ??? ????? ????????? (tm) (r)
Sun Jan 24 08:16:53 UTC 2016 <phf> basically the patch being dropped created bunch of work for me, that i don't have bandwidth to pursue. (i.e. produce a v version, test on stator)