Do we want to ignore CI?

Yes. We only just started making an effort to fix CI to pin tooling last week. We don't want to try to backport all those changes.

Forgot to update the lockfiles (which in 0.29.x exist but are not checked in CI). Will get my local CI working on this before merging..

Note to self: needed to add

SECP_VENDOR_VERSION_CODE=0_10_0 \

to my local CI script to get it to pass, since by default it wants the symbols in secp-sys to match the version in Cargo.toml exactly. (But doing this would turn a non-breaking change into a breaking one, which is why I didn't.)

@apoelstra your CI fail made me realize we should do the same thing here as we do in bitcoinconsensus.

What in particular?

Version the API, not the library and put the upstream version into metadata instead.

Agreed. Though for purposes of this PR, we can't make such a change (as it'd be a breaking change to change our version format at all).

Well, we already are breaking our format here, but obviously I'm not NACKing this.

obviously I'm not NACKing this

Will you ACK it? :}

Fine if you don't want to, but there aren't a lot of maintainers on this repo and you're the one who appears to be active right now.

I already did and since GH didn't dismiss my review I haven't noticed the force push.

Tagged and published.