MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151001095654.GB10010@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <20150924112555.GA21355@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<201509301757.44035.luke@dashjr.org>
	<20151001085058.GA10010@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<CAAUq486=TisNp0MbFjWYdCsyVX-qx5dV_KKZuNR7Jp63KNWeiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzuDPoQacdrH7n_ajwuYLMZ4-Z19KZSa=w=rLhmOkJhfQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAUq484+g89yD+s7iR_mGWPM3TTN7V6-EPb1ig=P1BKfcbztPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAUq4861Wd2c42gVy7SoW9414R8RGY+Yzp7rDtzagrwQewnFWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151001095654.GB10010@amethyst.visucore.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:10:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAUq486EXSJ1ri-3nWMt9vWhoajLp+LkWTV_-ZvU_FE+qfqcpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin.net>
To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0874e6b1e41b0521084265
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd:  Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule
Precedence: list

--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 <laanwj@gmail.com>:

> 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

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>&gt;=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Mostly bec=
ause we don&#39;t use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They just count=
 up, every half year.</span><br></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"=
><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">OK, but then it&#39=
;s not semantic versioning (as btcdrak claims).</span></div><div><span styl=
e=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8p=
x">&gt;=C2=A0</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Otherwise, one&#39;d h=
ave to ask hard questions like &#39;is the software mature enough to be cal=
led 1.0.0&#39;</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span=
></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">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.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></sp=
an></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Then you could start using t=
he version as a signaling mechanism.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">&gt;=C2=
=A0</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">We&#39;re horribly stressed-out =
as is.</span><br></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></d=
iv><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Yeah, probably not a very importan=
t topic right now.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></=
span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-10-01 11:56 GMT=
+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:laa=
nwj@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">laanwj@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel J=
amin wrote:<br>
&gt; I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is &lt;1.0.0<br>
<br>
I&#39;ll interpret the question as &quot;why is the Bitcoin Core software s=
till &lt;1.0.0&quot;. Bitcoin the currency doesn&#39;t have a version, the =
block/transaction versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest netwo=
rk protocol version is 70011.<br>
<br>
Mostly because we don&#39;t use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They =
just count up, every half year.<br>
<br>
Otherwise, one&#39;d have to ask hard questions like &#39;is the software m=
ature enough to be called 1.0.0&#39;, which would lead to long arguments, a=
ll of which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially increasi=
ng a number. We&#39;re horribly stressed-out as is.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Wladimir<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c0874e6b1e41b0521084265--