-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
eth/69 support #256
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
eth/69 support #256
Conversation
# Conflicts: # remote/ethbackend.proto
# Conflicts: # p2psentry/sentry.proto # remote/ethbackend.proto # remote/kv.proto
} | ||
|
||
enum Protocol { | ||
ETH65 = 0; | ||
ETH66 = 1; | ||
ETH67 = 2; | ||
ETH68 = 3; | ||
WIT0 = 4; | ||
ETH69 = 4; | ||
WIT0 = 5; // keep last |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shohamc1 you should not be doing this - it is not backward compatible - just increment and add ETH69 after it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in general, never change the field tag number - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65230623/safeness-of-changing-proto-field-number
No description provided.