Skip to content
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

small improvement on the capabilities config comments #1689

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2018
Merged

small improvement on the capabilities config comments #1689

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2018

Conversation

garyyu
Copy link
Contributor

@garyyu garyyu commented Oct 8, 2018

John Tromp @tromp 16:23
it says Bit flags for FULL_NODE and then bits = 6
#7 = Bit flags for FULL_NODE, this structure needs to be changed
#internally to make it more configurable
[server.p2p_config.capabilities]
bits = 6


Gary Yu @garyyu 16:24
it says 7= … FULL_NODE. Confused?


John Tromp @tromp 16:25
6 is for FAST_SYNC_NODE
oh i see why im confused
the 7 is not separate from #


John Tromp @tromp 16:27
i read it as a garbled # bit flags for FULL_NODE


Gary Yu @garyyu 16:28
Ok, will give a minor change on this comment.

@garyyu garyyu merged commit fd2eda2 into mimblewimble:master Oct 8, 2018
@antiochp
Copy link
Member

antiochp commented Oct 8, 2018

Do we still have an archival_mode flag in the config or is this fully replaced with this value 6?

@jaspervdm
Copy link
Contributor

According to comments.rs:88 it still exists

@garyyu
Copy link
Contributor Author

garyyu commented Oct 8, 2018

Do we still have an archival_mode flag in the config or is this fully replaced with this value 6?

Yes. And archival_mode has higher priority to overwrite bits.
According to Ingo's explain, it's much easier for user to config archival_mode instead of bits, that's why we want to keep archival_mode.

@jaspervdm
Copy link
Contributor

jaspervdm commented Oct 8, 2018

So if archival_mode takes priority over bits, why is bits configurable? Doesn't it make sense to set it automatically depending on archival_mode

@garyyu
Copy link
Contributor Author

garyyu commented Oct 8, 2018

good point! I guess that's why there's a comment there 😄 a remaining todo item.

#This structure needs to be changed internally, to make it more configurable

@garyyu garyyu deleted the minor-comment branch October 19, 2018 01:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants