> On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 at 04:11, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> After thinking more, I reached a conclusion it would better to apply
>> attached simple patch to v18 since v18 is already in the beta phase
>> and we want to make changes to it minimal.
>
> I thought that clarifying docs was exactly one of the
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 at 04:11, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> After thinking more, I reached a conclusion it would better to apply
> attached simple patch to v18 since v18 is already in the beta phase
> and we want to make changes to it minimal.
I thought that clarifying docs was exactly one of the things t
>> I agree that that's strictly true, but I think I still prefer my newly
>> proposed wording for a few reasons:
>> 1. My new wording is generic enough that we don't need to update it in
>> the future.
>> 2. A 3.2 server will currently still receive a 3.0 message, and might
>> want to support downg
> Let me rephrase what you are saying to be sure I understand it
> correctly: Since it's stated in the page that the page describes the
> 3.2 protocol specifically, arguably there's only one valid
> StartupMessage within that context, i.e. the one with 196610.
Your rephrasing is correct.
> I agre
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 13:34, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > I didn't? I replaced it with a more generic version of the same
> > information, that covers both protocol version 3.0 and 3.2 (and any
> > future 3.x)
>
> I meant this.
> >> - (0 for the protocol described here).
>
> With your patch
Hi,
> I meant this.
> >> - (0 for the protocol described here).
>
> With your patch the explanation that this document (Message Formats)
> is for 3.2, is gone. But maybe it's okay since "54.1.4. Protocol
> versions" already stats that the whole F/B protocol docs is for 3.2.
>
> What do you
> I didn't? I replaced it with a more generic version of the same
> information, that covers both protocol version 3.0 and 3.2 (and any
> future 3.x)
I meant this.
>> - (0 for the protocol described here).
With your patch the explanation that this document (Message Formats)
is for 3.2, is
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 12:16, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Why do you remove the info?
I didn't? I replaced it with a more generic version of the same
information, that covers both protocol version 3.0 and 3.2 (and any
future 3.x)
> Yeah it seems we didn't update this part of the docs. Attached is a
> patch to fix that.
> - the major version number (3 for the protocol described here).
> - The least significant 16 bits are the minor version number
> - (0 for the protocol described here).
Why do you r
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 08:56, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> So I suspect this is just a typo.
Yeah it seems we didn't update this part of the docs. Attached is a
patch to fix that.
From 8cfafc9518156e3213d0da9b19010c3211aff60b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:11
10 matches
Mail list logo
