Add draft 0.1 release notes#3530
Conversation
|
Might have missed it while trying to grep, but should not be there?Also I think some of the pending_changelogs existed before the 0.1 branch off. Are some of them still from 0.0.125 but haven't been deleted? |
|
Errr, duh, sorry, forgot to go through that list fully. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3530 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.36% 89.48% +1.12%
==========================================
Files 149 149
Lines 112875 118824 +5949
Branches 112875 118824 +5949
==========================================
+ Hits 99742 106330 +6588
+ Misses 10653 10129 -524
+ Partials 2480 2365 -115 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| * The `max_level_*` features were removed as the performance gain compared to | ||
| doing the limiting at runtime was negligible (#3431). | ||
| * `ChannelManager::create_bolt11_invoice` was added, deprecating the | ||
| `lightning::ln::invoice_utils` module (#3389). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Noted elsewhere that the module is still used for phantom invoice utils. Perhaps we just rename it next release?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably make create_bolt11_invoice support phantom invoices instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIUC, the utilities work without a ChannelManager as you would be accumulating PhantomRouteHints from multiple sources.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mmm, right. We should at least rename the module, then :)
| startup (#3305). | ||
|
|
||
| ## Node Compatibility | ||
| * LDK now handles fields in the experimental range of BOLT 12 messages (#3237). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fields feels more generally understandable vs the (kinda-)lightning-specific terminology?
| * `ChannelMonitor`s no longer need to be re-persisted after deserializing the | ||
| `ChannelManager` before beginning normal operation. As such, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like the note in backwards compatibility should be referenced here. IIUC, persistence is required at least once? And maybe the following sentence should come first to emphasize the API change here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The second is pretty minor (the user's code will fail to compile, if it even matters at all), but I referenced the backwards compat section explicitly.
jkczyz
left a comment
jkczyz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Good to squash, IMO.
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2025-01-0.1-relnotes
branch
from
dbc37ac to
550944b
Compare
|
Squashed. |
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2025-01-0.1-relnotes
branch
from
550944b to
5d1b6e0
Compare
|
Note that I cancelled CI so other PRs can run, it doesn't really matter here, anyway, CI doesn't look at our release notes at all. |
|
Looks like we need to account for the notes added in #3531. |
|
I was assuming that wouldn't make 0.1, I don't think we need to block 0.1 on it - its not a regression and it should only happen with a buggy |
|
Backported in #3536. |
…relnotes Add draft 0.1 release notes
4 participants
We'll have to add a few more things as backports land, but this should be basically it.