Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UgAPP-0000E7-1l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:05:03 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UgAPL-0007kK-Rf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:05:03 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 016F027A2965; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:04:53 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:53:17 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.9.0-gentoo; KDE/4.10.2; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201305250853.19603.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1UgAPL-0007kK-Rf Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] (no subject) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:05:03 -0000 On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:25:35 AM Melvin Carvalho wrote: > It might be an idea to have 'rule change' fixes and 'bug fix' releases go > out separately Bitcoin is a consensus system. You can't run clients with different rules on the same blockchain/network - it just won't work! Maybe we're now talking about mere client default policies? In which case, you should be able to configure previous behaviour... If you want just bug fixes and rule changes, without policy default changes, new features, etc, you can use the 0.4.x - 0.7.x backports. But be advised these are short-term solutions and won't be maintained forever - so you really should try to get the behaviour you want from the current release. If you can't for some reason, please do report a bug explaining what it is the older version was capable of that the new one isn't! Luke