Skip to content
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

Update CI builder image to use bitcoind 0.16.0 and reduce number of required blocks #1134

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 1, 2018

Conversation

cdecker
Copy link
Member

@cdecker cdecker commented Feb 28, 2018

Now seems to slightly overlap with #1127. Updates bitcoind to version 0.16.0 and reduces number of blocks pre-generated to 121, instead of 432. 121 are required at least so we have some mature funds.

@jsarenik
Copy link
Collaborator

README file also mentions 432 blocks.

@rustyrussell
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, fixed up README.md and reduced from 121 to 101 (tested! 100 is not enough, 101 is).

cdecker and others added 5 commits March 1, 2018 10:46
Now that 0.16.0 is stable we should make use of it

Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
0.16.0 is required since we rely on it for some tests and the block
reduction allows us to waste less time during setup. 121 blocks were
chosen so that we have at least one mature output to spend.

Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Since bitcoind 0.16 is already released it is safe to enable
this test already.
FWIW, the tests without valgrind take 662 seconds before we reduced
the number of blocks, and only 648 seconds now.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
@rustyrussell
Copy link
Contributor

Ack 985362c

@rustyrussell rustyrussell merged commit e10a2b6 into ElementsProject:master Mar 1, 2018
@cdecker
Copy link
Member Author

cdecker commented Mar 1, 2018

Wondering what the timing implications are :-)

@jsarenik
Copy link
Collaborator

jsarenik commented Mar 2, 2018

@rustyrussell One more thing. README mentions version 0.15 or above. Should this be changed now to 0.16?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants