Amir Taaki [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-11-02 🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on ...

📅 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>;