From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RLjli-000418-LS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from nm14-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.107]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RLjlh-0001bu-DC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm14.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2011 22:58:44 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.199] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2011 22:58:44 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1057.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2011 22:58:44 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 29314.58914.bm@omp1057.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 44908 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Nov 2011 22:58:43 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: LyumXy0VM1nOdWgwZzLZTxkm6dfRhLYQu1J5PiO.z4cswul hO39UOGE85ZQpQnDTdLGwOjHCmmEycbAIPoKLk914DesSklU8HBRenjQAmuP 4wTokOnfdpG.QSkaWcw0Bpn9ETnh0ZQs_FWHjzRPdr3VMNvKwS2kHovBUuwH I.NM2taMcgirFJzxfuLu1brqFmmRTCf6ezJOtdxhCOwhbgk3i9.xC8QOFtqg tIDhRkFCcdb1BIlBYZ5NbmX3A.KNkZM6NXXRGbWR2uIBUhtHHAg03Hycb5dv qZ_b68UEzQoxN00Do5TnLhKY7wkSbRXZqrv_Zqv5EcMDGZfwTNYuX9Vkbh5X yj4ED.dAy3s9Y_FFiw_yaOXzDtbIyelzIcgkX9X_BJ.ydB8i38Mrn5iH66IJ wrpl9rtvs5Xh9HjT9g_R4trN9H5y3mGdNcwNFOcS9yIhJ8w12VaCNVtK39q2 AzPa4yvKV3mVHdo9wayi5ZqDbLE3Fw8PJyfvw9sy__rTVVY2oP_mTyX1XhtE - Received: from [92.20.177.18] by web121017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:58:43 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.325013 References: <1320268981.72296.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1320273192.94365.YahooMailNeo@web121014.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1320274723.40397.YahooMailNeo@web121017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:58:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Amir Taaki To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-71337780-78840345-1320274723=:40397" 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 [98.138.91.107 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: 1RLjlh-0001bu-DC 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 22:58:50 -0000 ---71337780-78840345-1320274723=:40397 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cool thread. I enjoyed reading that :) Thanks for sharing. ________________________________ From: Christian Decker To: Amir Taaki Cc: "bitcoin-development@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 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 >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 > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >RSA(R) Conference 2012 >Save $700 by Nov 18 >Register now >http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 >_______________________________________________ >Bitcoin-development mailing list >Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > ---71337780-78840345-1320274723=:40397 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Cool thread. I enjoyed reading that :) Thanks for sharing.

From: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development@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@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@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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development




---71337780-78840345-1320274723=:40397--