<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuyn</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuyn</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2011-11-02&#xA;🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposal to lock version numbers to the protocol version and use the sub_version_num field for individual builds was discussed.&#xA;📝 Original message:Just for reference: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/63&#xA;The issue resulted in my most useless pull request fixing two variables :-)&#xA;&#xA;I second the use of sub_version_num as a Client and Version identifier.&#xA;&#xA;Regards,&#xA;Chris&#xA;&#xA;On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Amir Taaki &lt;zgenjix at yahoo.com&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Point taken.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; About the sub_version_num though. I prefer to let the field by defined&#xA;&gt; clients however they wish, with just a guideline suggestion that IDENTIFIER&#xA;&gt; VERSION is a format they should follow.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The idea being that different projects would have different release&#xA;&gt; scheduling schemes and it&#39;d be restrictive to lock people into the popular&#xA;&gt; major.minor system.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; So for the current bitcoin to find out the version number of other clients&#xA;&gt; (if it was needed), it would have to parse the number from the string:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &#34;Satoshi 0.5&#34;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Although there would be little reason for this with a sane protocol&#xA;&gt; versioning scheme.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; If we&#39;re agreed then I&#39;ll start on that BIP.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ------------------------------&#xA;&gt; *From:* Gavin Andresen &lt;gavinandresen at gmail.com&gt;&#xA;&gt; *To:* Amir Taaki &lt;zgenjix at yahoo.com&gt;&#xA;&gt; *Sent:* Wednesday, November 2, 2011 9:34 PM&#xA;&gt; *Subject:* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Good idea.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Sounds perfect for a BIP....&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Amir Taaki &lt;zgenjix at yahoo.com&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; &gt; Hey,&#xA;&gt; &gt; Can we lock the version numbers to be the protocol version (which changes&#xA;&gt; &gt; rarely) and instead use the sub_version_num field + revision number for&#xA;&gt; &gt; individual builds?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; --&#xA;&gt; --&#xA;&gt; Gavin Andresen&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&gt; RSA(R) Conference 2012&#xA;&gt; Save $700 by Nov 18&#xA;&gt; Register now&#xA;&gt; http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1&#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net&#xA;&gt; https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20111102/6ae2fbe3/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>