v1.99

[njhuffman]

Still a ways to go, but what happens when we hit version 1.99? That seems to be the last forward-supported version, so wondering if there should be a plan to continue forward compatibility for existing features.

[HACKERALERT]

1.100 or 2.01? I'm not a big versioning geek so for me it's just a number that changes every release and has no significance other than that. I think we'll most likely go to 2.01 after a security audit to denote that since it is a significant event.

[1z5q]

Hi, Evan and all the community members :)
Usually users psychologically perceive a leap to a new figure (1->2 in our case) as something "grandiose".
(and in fact, this has already become the case in most of the software out there).
Since PicoCrypt has already got great attention and quite large user base (especially in the privacy-oriented community), so... so I personally think it's better to wait for the audit OR if there are big changes being implemented, and only then switching to 2.0.

So in the meanwhile we could name it something like 1.9.1 (1.100 looks a bit long).

[1z5q]

Ouch, we've already got 1.99, so Evan is right, it's 1.100 we left with :)

[HACKERALERT]

1.9.1 is visually better than 1.100 for sure. But we can worry about that when we get there :)

For now, I woke up today to see we have raised enough money for an audit! Will have an update on this soon. After the audit, well probably go to 2.01 since I feel like then it's easy for people to know they're on an audited release. Can't do 2.0.1 because it adds a character and the volume format only supports 5 chars "v1.38" for example, and the v is required iirc 🤦

[1z5q]

I woke up today to see we have raised enough money for an audit!

GREAT news, Evan! I am really happy to hear that. There are a lot of people waiting for this👍👍.

[1z5q]

After the audit, well probably go to 2.01 since I feel like then it's easy for people to know they're on an audited release.

I totally agree with you🙂.

[njhuffman]

I'm not worried about what number we choose really, I was asking about if we're worried about making sure that files encrypted with v1.100 or v2.01 or whatever will be decryptable with earlier versions, which look for a version tag of "v1.##"

[HACKERALERT]

The current code matches by regex for vx.xx where x is any digit 0-9. Other than that, the version is only for reference. So I think we should be good.

[njhuffman]

That's not what this line is reading for. It specifies that version must be 1

if valid, _ := regexp.Match(`^v1\.\d{2}`, tmp); !valid || err != nil {

[HACKERALERT]

👀 my memory must be lacking then, haven't looked at that part in a while. Yeah, we should change the 1 to a \d.

[HACKERALERT]

Feel free to open a PR and request a review from me if you want to make the change

[HACKERALERT]

Decided to stick with the 1.XX since the audit didn't discover anything major. Also don't forsee making another 50+ releases anytime soon 😄