-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37.7k
rpc: Remove deprecated -rpcserialversion #28890
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
Conversation
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code CoverageFor detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
Concept ACK. |
It's only been deprecated in master for a couple of months; better to wait for it to actually be deprecated in the current release for a little while to give people a chance to complain if they're still relying on this functionality? Otherwise, changes here look like what I'd expect.
Could give bitcoin-util the capability to strip witness data from a block/tx and leave it up to users who need it, rather than making the RPC API more complex for what's presumably a very rare use case. |
Happy to wait, but there shouldn't be any merge conflicts, so it should be trivial to just type |
fa54f2c
to
fa46cc2
Compare
The deprecation was covered in https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2023/09/20/ and 26.0 was released a few weeks ago. Unless anyone heard someone complain, this seems good to move forward now? |
Concept ACK |
Given we're doing a short cycle, probably should either merge this soon for 27.0 or defer it to 28.0 and merge it shortly after branch off. No opinion either way on that personally. crACK fa46cc2 |
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.
lgtm ACK fa46cc2
If there is a use-case, likely a per-RPC flag can be added, if needed.
Post-merge utACK fa46cc2. Nice cleanup :) |
The flag is problematic for many reasons:
Fix all issues by removing it.
If there is a use-case, likely a per-RPC flag can be added, if needed.