Skip to content

Conversation

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

@maflcko maflcko commented Dec 9, 2020

Remove service bits that haven't been observed on the active network for years and won't ever be observed on the network with this meaning. Keeping this dead assignment in our source code forever doesn't add any value.

I somehow forgot to do this in commit fa0d0ff.

@maflcko maflcko added the P2P label Dec 9, 2020
@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Dec 9, 2020

Code review ACK fa40168

Copy link
Member

@fanquake fanquake left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK fa40168

@practicalswift
Copy link
Contributor

practicalswift commented Dec 9, 2020

cr ACK fa40168

Thanks for cleaning up!

@laanwj laanwj merged commit 42ed7f5 into bitcoin:master Dec 9, 2020
@maflcko maflcko deleted the 2012-netServiceFlags branch December 9, 2020 15:54
sidhujag pushed a commit to syscoin/syscoin that referenced this pull request Dec 9, 2020
@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Dec 10, 2020

I think it would be sensible to have a similar policy here as the Linux kernel has in regards to hardware documentation. This amounts to only including the part of the hardware interface (registers, bitfields, etc) that are used in the code. It's out of scope to provide or maintain e a full overview.

Same here for the protocol. We need to be only concerned with the parts that directly affect us. For the rest there's the BIPs repository.

@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 15, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants