Add feature "22_0" for bitcoin 22.0#30
Conversation
3ea8bc9 to
5321bc4
Compare
5321bc4 to
2bee56d
Compare
| /// assert_eq!(conf, bitcoind::Conf::default()); | ||
| /// ``` | ||
| /// | ||
| #[non_exhaustive] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had to remove this because it prevents external crates (like electrsd) from being able to create a Conf.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that's the entire point :)
users should use let conf = Conf::default() and then change the relative fields
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah ha! ok I removed this change.
|
looking in wrong place... https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-22.0/ |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn get_expected_sha256(filename: &str) -> Result<sha256::Hash, ()> { | ||
| let sha256sums_filename = format!("sha256/bitcoin-core-{}-SHA256SUMS.asc", &VERSION); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we use the .asc version also for 22.0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't decide about this, starting with 22.0 two files are created: SHA256SUMS and SHA256SUMS.asc. The first file has all the checksums and the second file only has signatures. Two other options I see are:
- for all new releases of
bitcoindwe rename theSHA256SUMSfile toSHA256SUMS.asc, but usually the.ascextension means that it's ascii armored which the new release files technically won't be. - we rename all the files in the
sha256directory, removing the.ascextension and we should also remove the signatures so the file names won't be misleading and since we don't use the signatures anyway.
Disadvantage of options 1 is some misleading file naming that conflict with actual files released with that name. I'd prefer option 2 since going forward for new releases we can just rename and drop in the unedited SHA256SUMS file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I didn't know the SHA256SUMS.asc format changed... Let's keep it as it is in current PR
315c9f1 to
2bee56d
Compare
|
Leaving this PR as |
|
just pushed core-rpc 0.15 |
2bee56d to
34e51f4
Compare
|
I've got some errors testing locally because the core-rpc Could you please rebase on master so that CI is run and fix the errors? |
34e51f4 to
c60f18c
Compare
|
Thanks, I should have tested it manually. I've re-based, made the required changes for |
|
LGTM |
|
released 0.19.0 |
No description provided.