See discussion in #3982
-
jgarzik commented at 2:13 AM on August 28, 2014: contributor
-
laanwj commented at 6:57 AM on August 28, 2014: member
Clean up what exactly?
-
TheBlueMatt commented at 7:17 AM on August 28, 2014: member
"The method of extending "version" to enumerate new features is godawful. Would love to just send key/value pairs at the end, or add a "capabilities" message and appropriate detection gadgetry for that new message, etc."
-
laanwj commented at 7:22 AM on August 28, 2014: member
I agree with that on a code cleanliness level, but is that really worth a protocol change?
-
TheBlueMatt commented at 5:38 AM on September 2, 2014: member
I think the proposal is more for "next time we update version to add more flags". In any case, not sure if we need a bug report for "next time", though it is incredibly hard to keep track of "next time's" (maybe we should have a way to tag those or keep them elsewhere)
-
sipa commented at 5:52 AM on September 2, 2014: member
I'd rather not extend version at all anymore. It's trivial to add a new message for negotiating new features, and it's automatically backward compatible that way.
-
laanwj commented at 7:41 AM on September 2, 2014: member
Well, that's the problem with issues that aren't actionable and specific, they will end up forgotten at the bottom of the issue list. This is also not so much an implementation issue but a protocol design issue.
I tend to agree with @sipa here. P2P protocol extensions are bound to get rarer and more subtle, I doubt we'll ever get a chance to redesign version.
- laanwj added the label P2P on Dec 5, 2014
- laanwj closed this on Feb 9, 2016
- MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021
Contributors
Labels