On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 1:54 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postg...@jeltef.nl> wrote: > My point is that the code that breaks, actually wants to be broken in this > case.
I'll turn this around then and assume for a moment that this is true: no matter what the use cases are, they all want to be broken for correctness. If this version change is allowed to break both the endpoints and any intermediaries on the connection, why have we chosen 30001 as the new reported version as opposed to, say, 4? Put another way: for a middlebox on the connection (which may be passively observing, but also maybe actively adding new messages to the stream), what is guaranteed to remain the same in the protocol across a minor version bump? Hopefully the answer isn't "nothing"? --Jacob
