I've been arguing with Luke-JR on IRC about the interpenetration of BIP_0014— Gavin's recent commit uses the same version string for the GUI interface and the daemon mode.
Luke believes this is a _violation_ of BIP_0014 and an error in judgement on Gavin's part, and a failure to conform to the community adopted standard. I believe Luke is mistaken: that BIP_0014 actually don't have mandatory requirements for what you put in the version field and even if it did, that they are in fact the same software and should have the same name. I don't think an agreement is likely on the second point, but the first point highlights some ambiguity in the interpretation of BIP language. E.g. What is permitted vs encouraged vs required. There is well established standard language for this purpose: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt I strongly recommend that all BIPs be written using the RFC2119 keywords where appropriate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Write once. Port to many. Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
