-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
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.
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
Rebased others #4401
Rebased others #4401
Conversation
Rebased by moneromooo, with a sensible commit message
Rebased and squashed by moneromooo
'outputs' option allows to specify the number of separate outputs of smaller denomination that will be created by sweep operation. rebased by moneromooo
Implemented strategy splits total amount into N equal parts, where N is a specified number of outputs. If N > 1, dummy change output is NOT created. rebased by moneromooo
rebased by moneromooo
rebased by moneromooo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewed
6690190 README: harmonize command formatting inside README.md (Andrea) 8cd9840 disable AES on s390x architecture (Tuan M. Hoang) 4ed30ba wallet: implement coin splitting for sweep_* 'outputs' option (whythat) 24f5239 wallet: add 'outputs' option for sweep_* commands (whythat) 52e19d6 README: Compile boost with cxxflags=-fPIC cflags=-fPIC (Italocoin Project) 0c77523 README: fill in libsodium package name for Arch (phloatingman)
@@ -116,6 +116,52 @@ X's indicate that these details have not been determined as of commit date. | |||
|
|||
Approximately three months prior to a scheduled software upgrade, a branch from Master will be created with the new release version tag. Pull requests that address bugs should then be made to both Master and the new release branch. Pull requests that require extensive review and testing (generally, optimizations and new features) should *not* be made to the release branch. | |||
|
|||
<<<<<<< HEAD |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why did this get approved? Has @fluffypony ever rejected or commented on a PR? To me it seems they simply get merged without further look.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@leonklingele this was fied in #4416
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@leonklingele what do you expect from a guy who thinks merging code is a button mashing exercise? [ 1 ]
Various PRs which the authors did not rebase when needed:
3032
3496
3647
3738
3937