It's a good idea. It would remove friction from the process and assignment is auditable to boot, something I've had difficulty with in the past. Almost every time I see a BIP number I would wonder, is that self-assigned (and thus invalid) or has it been assigned by the BIP editor.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <[email protected]> wrote: > The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for > storing and presenting BIPs. > > I'm thinking of suggesting that the number request process be changed > to opening a pull req with BIP text with no number (e.g. just using > the authors name and an index as the number) as the mechenism to > request number assignment. > > Is there any reason that anyone would find this objectionable? > > (Please do not respond to this message with anything but a strictly > directed answer to that question, start a new thread for a different > subject. Thanks!) > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
