From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: dkg@fifthhorseman.net Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e8df104b for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 19:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id c2c0956e for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 19:33:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Jannis Pinter Subject: Re: Compatibiliyt issues between 0.0.20170115 and 0.0.20170517 In-Reply-To: References: <16c492cb-af24-e864-cd49-c8c2c5457ee4@pinterjann.is> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:39:48 -0400 Message-ID: <8737c29cor.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu 2017-05-18 20:43:11 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Only use 0.0.20170517. i think this was the first incompatible revision that has been released. is that correct? i know we're in early days with wireguard, and there's no guarantee of protocol compatibility. but i wonder whether we should signal explicitly when there is an update that requires both sides to upgrade at the same time. Should i have put it in the NEWS file in the debian package, for example? Or are there other forms of signalling that we should use to communicate this better? --dkg