rich1.0npub1ep4j5tjp6cd2774hrx96vh845dwqzhe3z7n3a2a9uxdm2dajqpgscm3relhttps://nostr.ae/npub1ep4j5tjp6cd2774hrx96vh845dwqzhe3z7n3a2a9uxdm2dajqpgscm3relnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2011-11-02 🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on locking protocol version numbers and using sub_version_num as a client and version identifier in Bitcoin development. BIP proposal suggested. 📝 Original message:Cool thread. I enjoyed reading that :) Thanks for sharing. ________________________________ From: Christian Decker <decker.christian at gmail.com> To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> Cc: "bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers Just for reference: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/63 The issue resulted in my most useless pull request fixing two variables :-) I second the use of sub_version_num as a Client and Version identifier. Regards, Chris On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> wrote: Point taken. > > >About the sub_version_num though. I prefer to let the field by defined clients however they wish, with just a guideline suggestion that IDENTIFIER VERSION is a format they should follow. > > >The idea being that different projects would have different release scheduling schemes and it'd be restrictive to lock people into the popular major.minor system. > > >So for the current bitcoin to find out the version number of other clients (if it was needed), it would have to parse the number from the string: > > >"Satoshi 0.5" > > >Although there would be little reason for this with a sane protocol versioning scheme. > > >If we're agreed then I'll start on that BIP. > > > >________________________________ >From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> >To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> >Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 9:34 PM >Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers > >Good idea. > >Sounds perfect for a BIP.... > > >On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hey, >> Can we lock the version numbers to be the protocol version (which changes >> rarely) and instead use the sub_version_num field + revision number for >> individual builds? > >-- >-- >Gavin Andresen > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >RSA(R) Conference 2012 >Save $700 by Nov 18 >Register now >http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 >_______________________________________________ >Bitcoin-development mailing list >Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20111102/12e3637a/attachment.html>