From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RLjN0-0007d7-AU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:33:18 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from nm19-vm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.241]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RLjMz-0003uR-Iw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:33:18 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm19.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2011 22:33:12 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.253] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2011 22:33:12 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1045.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2011 22:33:12 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 418546.64347.bm@omp1045.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 17486 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Nov 2011 22:33:12 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: iWLrXrIVM1k0M9a8zSK46GZWavuolYCXagXBYozI.BHqXT9 iwTkGFSKsj6LSSAzMrsDqSgItIMi1NRrEdlLz4PrCdeNpqx_yWwEg6.gWe3_ eah1IcZDdwDM4mA.IeW2kvamDB_ZrK1QTvRIQe4zkUOyly7Ur8xH9TWTupKH GnRNgEbLpkEa4B0jBxXFgI.I94P9pyYAm2bcckdXTnM_GedngxpZuSflWEnE eQofrvqV7_IsfXI.42LB4es8s88xLpVErIGX0Muj5Rey43Ux.o4Pe.MrVfFl a.xvYRfxNOTi6SvDclKJ_ZtjshIeBNZvB5knDz8iKfAZ9e7pq2zdv3wu86zl LHJ._UCgrHvENNyzDVXBAwmrqo6Z39PpLe.ofGTUhs6fWhfvqKYPwoyKnW1I - Received: from [92.20.177.18] by web121014.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:33:12 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.325013 References: <1320268981.72296.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1320273192.94365.YahooMailNeo@web121014.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:33:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Amir Taaki To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-594111766-1714674839-1320273192=:94365" X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [98.138.91.241 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (zgenjix[at]yahoo.com) -1.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1RLjMz-0003uR-Iw Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Amir Taaki List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:33:18 -0000 ---594111766-1714674839-1320273192=:94365 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 To: Amir Taaki 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 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 ---594111766-1714674839-1320273192=:94365 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
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@gmail.com>
To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@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@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


---594111766-1714674839-1320273192=:94365--