Skip to content

MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow #7311

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
laanwj merged 1 commit into from
Feb 2, 2016
Merged

MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow #7311

laanwj merged 1 commit into from
Feb 2, 2016

Conversation

@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor

@jtimon jtimon commented Jan 7, 2016

Move this two non-consensus functions out of pow.o (which will become part of the consensus building module/package, see #7091 ):

  • GetBlockProof
  • GetBlockProofEquivalentTime

@jtimon jtimon changed the title MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain: MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow Jan 7, 2016
@dcousens
Copy link
Contributor

dcousens commented Jan 8, 2016

utACK ff97050

@paveljanik
Copy link
Contributor

paveljanik commented Jan 8, 2016

We test these functions in test/pow_tests.cpp. OK to keep them there?

ACK

@jonasschnelli
Copy link
Contributor

jonasschnelli commented Jan 8, 2016

ACK
Can confirm as move-only (ff97050913206522b22ef80d4241b82a8aba27f0).

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Jan 8, 2016

utACK ff97050

@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtimon commented Jan 8, 2016

@paveljanik I'm focusing on putting all the code in the consensus building package first and we can take care of the tests when the C API is complete and we separate libconsensus to its own repository like libsecp256k1. So, yes, we should separate the tests at some point, but I'll leave that of the scope of this PR for now.

@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtimon commented Jan 8, 2016

Added a "squashme" commit with @paveljanik 's nit.

@dcousens
Copy link
Contributor

dcousens commented Jan 10, 2016

re-ACK @ 270b60e

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Jan 10, 2016

utACK 270b60e

@instagibbs
Copy link
Member

instagibbs commented Jan 11, 2016

utACK 270b60e97ee2c2d18de97875069307714fe79d07

Confirmed move-only.

@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtimon commented Jan 11, 2016

@laanwj should I squash already?

@jtimon
MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain:
e867561 
- GetBlockProof
- GetBlockProofEquivalentTime
@jtimon jtimon force-pushed the consensus-pow-moveonly-0.13.99 branch from 270b60e to e867561 Compare January 12, 2016 12:43
@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Jan 14, 2016

re-ACK e867561 (rebase of 270b60e )

@dcousens
Copy link
Contributor

dcousens commented Jan 15, 2016

reACK e867561

@dcousens dcousens mentioned this pull request Jan 15, 2016
Merged
@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtimon commented Jan 28, 2016

@laanwj anything holding this?

@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Feb 2, 2016

utACK

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Feb 2, 2016

utACK e867561

@laanwj laanwj merged commit e867561 into bitcoin:master Feb 2, 2016
laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 2, 2016
@laanwj
Merge #7311: MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow
47ac04e 
e867561 MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain: (Jorge Timón)
@jtimon jtimon mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2016
Closed
codablock pushed a commit to codablock/dash that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2017
@laanwj @codablock
Merge bitcoin#7311: MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow
a65f7b7 
e867561 MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain: (Jorge Timón)
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

Refactoring

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

@jtimon @dcousens @paveljanik @jonasschnelli @maflcko @instagibbs @sipa @laanwj