Automatic sanity-testing: PASSED, see http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/p4702_6b18a63a5099a6011187f20d05f2357a5bb4b2ea/ for binaries and test log.
This test script verifies pulls every time they are updated. It, however, dies sometimes and fails to test properly. If you are waiting on a test, please check timestamps to verify that the test.log is moving at http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/current/
Contact BlueMatt on freenode if something looks broken.

rebased

@jonasschnelli is working on larger changes to the wallet, and adding a 'netwallet' based on a new database. There doesn't seem to be much point in improving the performance of the legacy wallet, with risk of breaking things. So I'm closing this, sorry.

Any news on this wallet by @jonasschnelli ? I ask because a number of useful ideas seem to have been by-passed in favor of this option.

Still working on the wallet. Currently I'm exploring some hardware wallet stuff. Soon I'm back refactoring the wallet. Very likely I'm going to remove everything node related from my core-wallet fork and support SPV*RPC (qt) wallet connection to a trusted full node. Bundling the two (for deployment) could still be possible.

This seems related to #6851?

hehehe, it'll be a year soon and likely any work you do will take a while longer. Why don't we re-consider the most useful pull requests and maybe merge them? Then later when your version becomes available, we can allow users to have a choice? I see no downside to this and would be willing to put in some hours towards these goals.