LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 29 Pull requests 1 Packages Projects Releases 32 Wiki Activity

Support segwit tails on ops witness #301

Merged
lbrynaut merged 3 commits from support_segwit_tails_on_ops_witness into master 2019-08-28 21:35:05 +02:00
Conversation 4 Commits 3 Files changed 21 +250 -194
lbrynaut commented 2019-08-07 19:12:47 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@BrannonKing This is built on top of your similarly named branch, but includes additional changes and rebased on master.

@BrannonKing This is built on top of your similarly named branch, but includes additional changes and rebased on master.
lbrynaut commented 2019-08-08 13:48:04 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@BrannonKing Cherry-picking 05d89e91cf44109d6fd6b36819930c282cbaf1ab does resolve the OS X test issue (and the local issue I also had). Do you want me to push that commit here, or rebase this on top of that one after it's pushed to master?

@BrannonKing Cherry-picking `05d89e91cf44109d6fd6b36819930c282cbaf1ab` does resolve the OS X test issue (and the local issue I also had). Do you want me to push that commit here, or rebase this on top of that one after it's pushed to master?
BrannonKing (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-08 18:01:51 +02:00
src/script/standard.cpp
BrannonKing (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-08 17:50:05 +02:00
Copy link

Should this be TX_STAKE? The spec makes me wonder.

Should this be TX_STAKE? The spec makes me wonder.
BrannonKing commented 2019-08-08 18:12:48 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

For the unit test issue, I've just cherry-picked the fix onto master. Go ahead and rebase.

For the unit test issue, I've just cherry-picked the fix onto master. Go ahead and rebase.
👍 1
bvbfan commented 2019-08-09 09:35:48 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Should we have T_CLAIM in Solver as well?

Should we have T_CLAIM in Solver as well?
lbrynaut commented 2019-08-09 13:34:36 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Should we have T_CLAIM in Solver as well?

?

This code produces the type in solver.

> Should we have T_CLAIM in Solver as well? ? This code produces the type in solver.
👍 1
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-09 13:35:32 +02:00
src/script/standard.cpp
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-09 13:35:31 +02:00
Copy link

If we want to make it unintuitive. Either way.

If we want to make it unintuitive. Either way.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
area: devops

   
area: discovery

   
area: docs

   
area: livestream

   
area: proposal

Work is part of a proposal

  
consider soon

Discuss this issue at the next planning meeting, then remove this label

  
Epic

   
good first issue

   
hacktoberfest

Welcome to Hacktoberfest

  
hard fork

   
help wanted

   
icebox

Long-term storage

  
Invalid

   
level: 0

   
level: 1

No knowledge of the existing code required

  
level: 2

Some knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 3

Significant knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 4

Intimate knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
needs: exploration

Solution unclear, needs research

  
needs: grooming

Issue needs to be groomed before work can start

  
needs: priority

Priority level needs to be defined

  
needs: repro

Issue needs step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce in latest code

  
needs: tech design

Needs technical design signoff before implementation can begin

  
on hold

Temporarily paused

  
priority: blocker

Issue is blocking release, do ASAP

  
priority: high

Work needs to be moved into sprint ASAP

  
priority: low

Work should be done but can stay in the backlog for now

  
priority: medium

Work needs to be done within 2-3 sprints

  
resilience

   
soft fork

   
Tom's Wishlist

   
type: bug

Existing functionality is wrong or broken

  
type: discussion

A conversation. No specific changes requested

  
type: improvement

Existing (or partially existing) functionality needs to be changed

  
type: new feature

New functionality that does not exist yet

  
type: refactor

Minimal user-visible changes, but significant internal work

  
type: task

Either work that's not related to the code, or a small chore that does not fit into other categories

  
type: testing

Solution needs additional user testing

  
unplanned

Work that was not planned into the spirnt, took priority over planned work

  
work in progress

The proposed solution is still incomplete.

No labels
area: devops
area: discovery
area: docs
area: livestream
area: proposal
consider soon
Epic
good first issue
hacktoberfest
hard fork
help wanted
icebox
Invalid
level: 0
level: 1
level: 2
level: 3
level: 4
needs: exploration
needs: grooming
needs: priority
needs: repro
needs: tech design
on hold
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
resilience
soft fork
Tom's Wishlist
type: bug
type: discussion
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
type: testing
unplanned
work in progress
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd#301
No description provided.
Delete branch "support_segwit_tails_on_ops_witness"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?