I must say that I'm more than a bit peeved that my proxy code was rewritten and broken. The changes in current master break the ability to load a proxy config. I looked at the changes and thought it was broken but had to pull the current master branch to be sure. I also don't much like the numerous minor syntax changes. What I wrote was tested and worked and now it's a broken mess.
Currently if you set a proxy mode and save it will not get picked up when you start again. It also breaks the ability to disable a proxy to None with a cmd line option since None is no longer supported. These are things I tested fairly extensively before submitting my code. The changes also break fine tuning I made later and probably will result in conflicts when bringing in further improvements I've since made.
I've got whole slew of small and useful changes in my fork and I don't plan to do pull requests on any of them. All of the below are tested as working on my system. No one seems to have bothered testing them elsewhere. Socks support worked too before it was mangled up.
confirmation-tooltips - use tooltip for confirm count instead of passing tx data
exchanges-proxy-mode - proxy support for exchanges
filter-history - show only selected address transactions
import-addr-or-key-only - add watch only address support
multi-exchange - allow selecting which exchange to use for quotes
multi-select-send - easy coin control
pro-show-currency - add currency quote next to balance in pro mode
qr-scalable-centered - make qr code scale with window and centered
red-debits - show withdraw/payments in red text as std for accounting
remember-column-widths - stop having to re-set column widths
sahara - new sandy brown theme
shrink-gui-lite-settings - allow changing back to Lite mode from Pro
Right now, I'm a quite disgruntled with how this project is run. I'm not going to write code to just have it f'd with and overridden with breaking changes. I'd love to see Electrum improve but if the current devs prefer it stagnate then no problem, I can go put my efforts elsewhere.
I don't see that point of me testing my code extensively just to have it merged into master and then edited without my knowledge and broken. Shouldn't breaking changes be tested before merging in master? Doesn't that make bloody sense? Is there any rules about flow here or do people just edit willy nilly in master branch as they please?
Hey Bkk,
I haven't been able to code or do much Electrum related work these last two weeks. The last thing I did was merge your merged branch into master. I did talk with ThomasV who said that you broke a few key parts and he needed to fix them. I will ask him to take a look at your comments here.
I do appreciate all the work you have done, and I understand that it must be really frustrating to see that it is now broken.
The main problem is that at this moment there is no real "leading figure" for Electrum, what happened to you is probably a result thereof.
I want to get this off my chest because hopefully it will spark a change that will get Electrum back on the right track again. A couple of months back, when I first stumbled on Electrum I was in love with the concept. I've made a few commits to the Gui, mainly because I loved the Satoshi style confirmation icons and I thought it might be a need little addition. My pull request wasn't commented on for a couple of days so I decided to jump on IRC to see if I could get in contact with ThomasV and discuss it. That's where I was greeted by Genjix who explained that he was working on a new Gui, which is now the 'Lite GUI'. I did not like the default style so I decided to work it over to what it is now. Genjix was very willing to work with me and build in new features where ThomasV was taking a more conservative approach. Since the changes I was working on were on the Lite GUI and not the original one by ThomasV it did not matter at that point.
Now this is were I'm a bit fuzzy and either Genjix or ThomasV should comment. But at one point I think Genjix and Thomas met to discuss Genjix taking over Electrum. A few weeks after this meeting the Lite gui got released and pushed as default gui. The 1.0 release went out with the new website and the move to github. Looking back at things I think there might have been a miscommunication at this point between Genjix and Thomas and I got the feeling Electrum might have been 'kidnapped' at this point. The problem was that shortly ater the 1.0 release Genjix disappeared because of the conference planning he was doing. There were loads of questions about Electrum popping up but nobody was answering them. Genjix was probably busy with the conference and I think Thomas was pissed off because of the changes Genjix pushed through, leaving Electrum empty handed.
I stepped in to answer questions in the multiple threads as much as I could and try to do my best to merge pull requests into master and to fix bugs that popped up. I, however, never asked for this job. The only reason I'm doing it is because nobody else is. I am not the right person for the job. I did not create Electrum and I only have a few months of experience with Python. This project deserves to be run by somebody who can manage it all.
I greatly respect ThomasV and Genjix for the unique qualities that they posses. Genjix is great at gathering a community and embracing the best of open source where ThomasV has the great technical skill and knowledge required to build such a sophisticated piece of software. But they are both trying to achieve different things with the same client. Genjix want's a user friendly client that everybody can use, where as I think Thomas is more interested in building a very powerful tool for more experienced users.
I love Electrum, it's the best client out there and I would hate to see passionated contributers like Bkk turned away because of internal miscommunication.
Electrum needs vision and leadership again and I think it's up to Thomas and Genjix to decide how they want to advance.