志宇
志宇
@notmandatory I'm happy to merge this now tbh. It doesn't conflict or break anything.
@ValuedMammal are you suggesting that the new `tx_graph::ChangeSet` should have the same signature as the current `indexed_tx_graph::ChangeSet`? I'm okay with this, but I still don't understand how this is better...
I'm going to rebase this on master and remove the changes to `bdk_wallet`.
@tnull Changeset serialization format is definitely going to be backwards compatible. In terms of [Cargo semver](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html), these are breaking changes.
@tnull are you able to be specific with what you want? I.e. it will be much more productive if you told us how you did serialization in LDK Node if...
Thanks for this PR. I haven't had the opportunity to review this properly yet, however I am wondering if there is a particular reason why `bdk_wallet` is not a dev-dependency?
Also, can you please remove the merge commit and do a rebase instead? Thank you
https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/rust-esplora-client/compare/master...evanlinjin:rust-esplora-client:any_http_client_lib
I think it's okay to break things completely since it's just a client library. Aiming for "minimal changes" shouldn't be one of our requirements imo. --- > I would say...
I think there is no point in having multiple *request* methods on `HttpRequest`. We can either introduce a type alias or a struct with public fields. I'm leaning towards struct...