Add 0.2 changelog (and quick missing spliec doc) #4163
Conversation
|
I've assigned @joostjager as a reviewer! |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4163 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.78% 88.79%
=======================================
Files 180 180
Lines 137004 137103 +99
Branches 137004 137103 +99
=======================================
+ Hits 121642 121741 +99
- Misses 12538 12543 +5
+ Partials 2824 2819 -5
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2025-09-0.2-beta
branch
from
4741bb1 to
596e650
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was assigned by the bot, but as @TheBlueMatt mentioned in the meet, everyone should really check their contributions here.
NIce concise changelogs
| /// initialized with | ||
| /// Indicates that an onion message supporting peer has come online and any messages previously | ||
| /// stored for them (from [`Event::OnionMessageIntercepted`]s) should be forwarded to them by | ||
| /// calling [`OnionMessenger::forward_onion_message`]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good addition, wasn't clear indeed that forward_onion_message needs to be called.
|
|
||
| ## API Updates | ||
|
|
||
| * Splicing is now supported. The current implementation is expected to be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Curious why it says "expected". Isn't interop confirmed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have not had time to do interop testing, no. We will likely do some before the release but probably not a ton.
| `UserConfig::reject_inbound_splices` can be set to block inbound ones (#4150) | ||
| * LDK now requires the `channel_type` feature in line with spec updates (#3896) | ||
|
|
||
| XXX release stats |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reminder to update. Maybe XXX is part of the process?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, will do it once we get the other PRs landed.
| @@ -1,3 +1,154 @@ | |||
| # 0.2 - XXX, 2025 - "Natively Asynchronous Splicing" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be nice to add a bit of a sales pitch here? Example AI slop:
LDK 0.2 – “Natively Asynchronous Splicing” is here, delivering the future of Lightning development today. Splicing support has landed, letting you resize channels on the fly, with native async APIs across the stack for faster, cleaner, and more efficient operations. Async payments are now live too, enabling smoother BOLT 12 flows for often-offline users and LSPs. Zero-Fee-Commitment channels slash feerate headaches, while new LSPS and RGS features power next-gen liquidity and performance. With major speed boosts, deeper diagnostics, and smarter persistence, LDK 0.2 is your all-in-one upgrade for a faster, more flexible Lightning future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We historically haven't, letting the API Updates section speak for itself (its roughly sorted in "importance" order so splicing and async and async payments are right at the top). We did for 0.1 just given we were starting to do backports and wanted to describe that. We do use this kinda pitch for the release announcement tho.
`ChannelManager::splice_channel` initiates a splice which ultimately generates a series of events. The most important of which, `FundingTransactionReadyForSigning` (which must always be handled, unlike the others), was not documented. Here we mention the event generation.
Users implementing the "onion message mailbox" feature and handling `OnionMessageIntercepted` events need to also handle `Event::OnionMessagePeerConnected` events. Here we update the event docs for both to add additional references and be more explicit about what implementors need to do.
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2025-09-0.2-beta
branch
from
8c3b4bd to
a5acf3c
Compare
6 participants
Note that this is against main so will need to be backported.