Andy Parkins [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-08-11 🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion on ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-08-11
🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion on backward compatibility in Bitcoin development, with one participant suggesting a single release for all changes instead of incremental updates.
📝 Original message:On 2011 August 11 Thursday, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:47 +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
> > Again you're missing my point... you are still shooting ideas down.
>
> And you're only shooting his actions down without indicating clearly
Yeah, shooting down a shooting down, which you've just shot down. Where will
it end?
> what you think ought to be done instead. What do you want him to say
> instead?
How about:
"This is a good idea, but we don't want to break backward compatibility a
little piece at a time. Instead we'd like to collect all such changes into
one single compatibility breaking release. Here's the wiki page you should
update; and here's the git branch you should push changes like this to."
> most suggestions you point at have been discussed about before
I know the application/protocol version split has been discussed before, but
please point me to the relevant discussion on: loading the block chain in
reverse; transaction only requests; checksumming removal; verack removal;
storing script parameters outside the script; and requesting blocks by
transaction hash instead of block hash.
If I've missed all of these discussions and their inevitable logically
indisputable rejection, I apologise.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110811/bc780656/attachment.sig>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion on backward compatibility in Bitcoin development, with one participant suggesting a single release for all changes instead of incremental updates.
📝 Original message:On 2011 August 11 Thursday, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:47 +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
> > Again you're missing my point... you are still shooting ideas down.
>
> And you're only shooting his actions down without indicating clearly
Yeah, shooting down a shooting down, which you've just shot down. Where will
it end?
> what you think ought to be done instead. What do you want him to say
> instead?
How about:
"This is a good idea, but we don't want to break backward compatibility a
little piece at a time. Instead we'd like to collect all such changes into
one single compatibility breaking release. Here's the wiki page you should
update; and here's the git branch you should push changes like this to."
> most suggestions you point at have been discussed about before
I know the application/protocol version split has been discussed before, but
please point me to the relevant discussion on: loading the block chain in
reverse; transaction only requests; checksumming removal; verack removal;
storing script parameters outside the script; and requesting blocks by
transaction hash instead of block hash.
If I've missed all of these discussions and their inevitable logically
indisputable rejection, I apologise.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110811/bc780656/attachment.sig>;