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

Release v0.39.0 - RC0 #6707

Merged
merged 28 commits into from
Jul 15, 2020
Merged

Release v0.39.0 - RC0 #6707

merged 28 commits into from
Jul 15, 2020

Conversation

alessio
Copy link
Contributor

@alessio alessio commented Jul 13, 2020

Launchpad v0.39.0


Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

  • Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
  • Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
  • Code follows the module structure standards.
  • Wrote unit and integration tests
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
  • Added relevant godoc comments.
  • Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
  • Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

Alessio Treglia and others added 15 commits June 9, 2020 15:46
`keys parse` uses the global configuration before
before client applications have had a chance to
apply their settings.

This change adds a `GetSealedConfig()` helper
that waits for the config to be sealed before
returning it.

Fixes: #5091
Origin: 4e328d7
Author: Adam Bozanich <adam.boz@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alessio Treglia <alessio@tendermint.com>
* launchpad: bump tendermint to v0.33.6

* cha-cha-cha
ChainAnteDecorators() panics when no arguments are supplied.
This change its behaviour and the function now returns a nil
AnteHandler in case no AnteDecorator instances are supplied.

Closes: #5741
* launchpad: backport cliCtx.QueryABCI

* add prove flag
Include changes from PR #6283

Co-authored-by: Federico Kunze <31522760+fedekunze@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Alessio Treglia <alessio@tendermint.com>
@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

tac0turtle commented Jul 13, 2020

Does this need a testnet to do testnet before release?

@alessio
Copy link
Contributor Author

alessio commented Jul 13, 2020

@marbar3778 dixit:

Does this need a testnet to do testnet before release?

I would agree to that, yes.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 13, 2020

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (release/v0.39.0@5f6e499). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@                Coverage Diff                 @@
##             release/v0.39.0    #6707   +/-   ##
==================================================
  Coverage                   ?   51.60%           
==================================================
  Files                      ?      337           
  Lines                      ?    20643           
  Branches                   ?        0           
==================================================
  Hits                       ?    10653           
  Misses                     ?     9182           
  Partials                   ?      808           

go.sum Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# CODEOWNERS: https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/

# Primary repo maintainers
* @rigelrozanski @alexanderbez @jackzampolin @alessio @fedekunze
* @alessio @clevinson @ethanfrey
Copy link
Member

@tac0turtle tac0turtle Jul 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't believe this does what you would like. You should set these codeowners to the 0.39 line. so you three would be code owners for the backport branches only.

This won't change anything as the codeowners need to be on the default branch...

https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/about-code-owners#codeowners-file-location

Copy link
Contributor Author

@alessio alessio Jul 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I originally intended to use the CODEOWNERShip thingy as a way to automatically notify the people listed there on PRs that was meant to be merged against launchpad-specific branches (cause when you are in CODEOWNERS you get the notification automatically every time a PR is opened). But I think you're right, maybe this is not the best way of doing it - and it's not effective at all either. Can you help me please?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(meanwhile, I've reverted the respective commit)

@alessio alessio requested a review from clevinson July 14, 2020 14:43
Alessio Treglia and others added 2 commits July 14, 2020 17:47
@alessio alessio marked this pull request as ready for review July 14, 2020 17:25
@alessio alessio marked this pull request as draft July 14, 2020 17:29
Copy link
Contributor

@clevinson clevinson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor comment on release notes, otherwise looks good!

NEWS.md Outdated

## Regression in the signature verification when multiple transactions in the same block are sent from the same account

When multiple transactions in the same block are sent (and correctly signed) by the same account, chances are that some of them could be rejected and the error `unauthorized: signature verification failed` would be returned due to the account's sequence (*nonce*) getting stuck and not being incremented by the ante handler. This behaviour was [a regression](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/issues/6287) introduced in the `v0.38` release series and did not occur in the `v0.37` release series.
Copy link
Contributor

@clevinson clevinson Jul 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we be more explicit in this section that the regression has been fixed in 0.39? This section currently outlines the problem, but does not really state whether or not it has been fixed in 0.39.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point, please see c0fe624

@alessio alessio changed the base branch from release/v0.39.0 to rc0/v0.39.0 July 15, 2020 10:46
@alessio alessio changed the title Release v0.39.0 Release v0.39.0 - RC0 Jul 15, 2020
@alessio alessio marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2020 10:47
@alessio alessio merged commit ae4dcbc into rc0/v0.39.0 Jul 15, 2020
@alessio alessio deleted the launchpad/release/v0.39 branch July 15, 2020 10:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants