< GitHub71>
bitcoin/0.13 719208c paveljanik: Rewrite shell example to not leave secrets in the history file
< GitHub53>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8441: doc: Rewrite shell example to not leave secrets in the history file (0.13...patch-17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8441
< GitHub71>
bitcoin/0.13 6c083ac Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8441: doc: Rewrite shell example to not leave secrets in the history file...
< GitHub193>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8331: Fix three 'comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions' warnings. (master...fix-compilation-warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8331
< GitHub43>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8316: [qa] feefilter: Clear mempool after each check (master...Mf1607-qafeefilter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8316
<@luke-jr>
how will a 0.13 node react to a chainstate w segwit info (ie from 0.13.1)
<@luke-jr>
?
< sipa>
luke-jr: chainstates do not enter the utxo ser
< paveljanik>
github is a bit slow today...
< GitHub139>
[bitcoin] paveljanik opened pull request #8449: [Trivial] Do not shadow local variable, cleanup (master...20160803_shadow_blockencodings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8449
<@luke-jr>
sipa: any other possible downgrade risks? eg maybe seeing a witnessblock in reindex
< sipa>
luke-jr: we rewind at startup
< sipa>
oh, that's for forward upgrade, not backward
< sipa>
downgrading will break things if you do it after segwit activates
<@luke-jr>
right
<@luke-jr>
break how badly?
< sipa>
hmm, i wonder if we cannot just fix that
< sipa>
make it rewind in that case as well
< sipa>
so at least you'd be able to downgrade from 0.13.1 to 0.13.0
<@luke-jr>
it might not make sense to support it, but we should make sure the failure is not ugly
< gmaxwell>
we could just make 0.13 detect that case and refuse to run.
< gmaxwell>
that would be trivial.
< phantomcircuit>
er what's the create_cache.py rpc test supposed to be doing?