From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA071C9D for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:10:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yk0-f181.google.com (mail-yk0-f181.google.com [209.85.160.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D551625A for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:10:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ykft14 with SMTP id t14so74157320ykf.0 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 03:10:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Un6rLgpD/KP3p/AxDqsOBwPLWNJ70eKVqYRl6uQ5DZY=; b=HvXaNsWC7lMgtxb629PSblziexg6rVaTFz9dK/nfLIg9alwcjTWbCG7YqgTKjMGxRt 3yT/srLJoo4MkDyHVmkpdlnKqJ0ZHtxMwvseFbjuzFHCc8f97FzNMD2qKkMgNLzPhzZv J/9atdj6gC2Xq3AXNA+cEXlAGfUM6K+2mp1n6GqdH9fV2OPEb1r6iwGmfVZqlFxlh04W jOQvDAOCqLeUEK77bM3vOKwPmA+MXZoxV9g34vjll3Zyx5z3fO3DwWu2vQCbObXcvcGS 4AxnZRvVeUDObNUNiFbyyz0OaZE2ILRpPbIyVUaXb6i1Tv0IdqNrGHHXlVVVkdYi00Uk 2dUA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmqHgn7Vc+xVeghRUSj4FY1bBxDfVN310/0FTxF32mSAisNsQRU1bQTgxFxqLlNaCTSjYTz MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.13.255.4 with SMTP id p4mr7441687ywf.88.1443694245947; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 03:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.220.65 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 03:10:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20151001095654.GB10010@amethyst.visucore.com> References: <20150924112555.GA21355@amethyst.visucore.com> <201509301757.44035.luke@dashjr.org> <20151001085058.GA10010@amethyst.visucore.com> <20151001095654.GB10010@amethyst.visucore.com> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:10:45 +0200 Message-ID: From: Marcel Jamin To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0874e6b1e41b0521084265 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 10:10:47 -0000 --94eb2c0874e6b1e41b0521084265 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They just count up, every half year. OK, but then it's not semantic versioning (as btcdrak claims). > Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature enough to be called 1.0.0' I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probably long overdue. Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism. > We're horribly stressed-out as is. Yeah, probably not a very important topic right now. 2015-10-01 11:56 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan : > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote: > > I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0 > > I'll interpret the question as "why is the Bitcoin Core software still > <1.0.0". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the block/transaction > versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest network protocol > version is 70011. > > Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They > just count up, every half year. > > Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature > enough to be called 1.0.0', which would lead to long arguments, all of > which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially increasing a > number. We're horribly stressed-out as is. > > Wladimir > --94eb2c0874e6b1e41b0521084265 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0Mostly bec= ause we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They just count= up, every half year.

OK, but then it'= ;s not semantic versioning (as btcdrak claims).

>=C2=A0Otherwise, one'd h= ave to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature enough to be cal= led 1.0.0'

I think the question has alrea= dy been answered for you by the companies that build on top of it, the inve= stments being made and the $3.5 billion market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probab= ly long overdue.

Then you could start using t= he version as a signaling mechanism.

>=C2= =A0We're horribly stressed-out = as is.

Yeah, probably not a very importan= t topic right now.



2015-10-01 11:56 GMT= +02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel J= amin wrote:
> I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0

I'll interpret the question as "why is the Bitcoin Core software s= till <1.0.0". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the = block/transaction versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest netwo= rk protocol version is 70011.

Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They = just count up, every half year.

Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software m= ature enough to be called 1.0.0', which would lead to long arguments, a= ll of which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially increasi= ng a number. We're horribly stressed-out as is.

Wladimir

--94eb2c0874e6b1e41b0521084265--