Thank you warren, it was for the interest of the community. I asked you for direction, I already contribute to open source in many different ways, I don't need to push just another random feature.
I know you have a roadmap, I know you have HIGH priorities, I asked you to indicate to me what are the highest priority so that I can towards achievement of such goals. There are sorts of things are not embedded inside the code and this is one of them. I want to be effective.
Given that now you are, how many?, 5-10 developers.
if you don't even find the time to answer to someone who tells you " I'm available, enthusiast and energetic, I have development capabilities, I worked with crypto, I decided to DONATE my time to the LTC cause " then you might be leaving important stuff out.
That's only IMHO, I really appreciate all you are doing and I have no problems imaging you busy on very important stuff. Just, please, try to have a long term vision and not focus ONLY on 0.9 and issue tracking systems.
As stated earlier, people do not ask for permission to join open source development. They see things they want to improve/fix and they just do it, then convince others to accept the code contribution. I do not have time to hold the hand of everyone who offers to help in non-specific ways and determine how they can help. It turns out the majority of volunteers quit too easily. The learning curve of this software is particularly difficult compared to other open source software.
This being said, I had been thinking that we do need a formal area for dev volunteers to join and talk with other developers about goals. We do not have time to explain things on an individual basis but we can do a better job of communicating goals en masse. Perhaps the Development board on this forum should be more strictly enforced to actual development issues and it would be more useful for that purpose. I will talk with the Litecoin Association about changing policy in that particular board.
For now, the fact of the matter is most of what needs to improved about Litecoin are issues or missing features that must be fixed in Bitcoin first.https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?state=openhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls
This massive pile of open issue tickets and pull requests need developer attention. Most of it is relevant to us, or it will be when we upgrade to Litecoin 0.9. Some are simple tech support issues that can be closed easily. Others require developers to fix bugs or to test/review proposed code changes.https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3383https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3461
You were asking for clues of priorities. These are two issues that are important for privacy and security improvements of the Bitcoin and Litecoin clients. They are unlikely to be fixed for Bitcoin 0.9 because they are considered low priority to the Bitcoin devs. These two tickets are among the easier of things that need to be fixed however they would likely be very time consuming to prove they are complete and safe. I know for a fact that #3461 is broken in a very difficult to test way, see #3088 for notes.
The bitcoinj, Android Wallet and Multibit issues are entirely different. Hank understands most of what needs to be done, mostly it involves complicated discussions with upstream about what abstractions and improvements would be accepted upstream before the Litecoin equivalent source is substantially cleaned in a series of rebases. The learning curve here is quite steep too.
Someone else claimed to be working on bringing back Litecoin Electrum. Where is that thread? I don't know their status.
Apparently it wouldn't be a lot of work to adapt Armory to interface with Litecoin. That would be a good project for someone new to focus on.
We want to do it one day, but for the moment 0.9 is our top priority. Maintaining the security and stability of the Litecoin network relies largely on staying close to Bitcoin, where we sometimes fix things in Bitcoin so they don't consider us to be entirely leaches. Understanding what is happening with 0.9 is also important because we need to know which parts to revert/disable/change when the Litecoin network upgrades. They have a different design philosophy on a few key issues and understanding how they evolve is critical to adopting their improvements without accidentally breaking Litecoin.