On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 02:20:51PM -0400, Antoine Riard wrote:
> More personally, I feel it would be better if such a new specification
> process doesn't completely share the same communication infrastructure as
> the BOLTs, like [avoiding] having them in the same repository. 

In addition to Antoine's perception-based concern, I think an additional
problem with keeping both BOLTs and BLIPs in the same repository is that
there's no easy way for contributors to subscribe to only a subset of
issues and PRs.  E.g., if Alice is only interested in BOLTs and she
clicks the GitHub Watch Repository button, she'll receive notifications
for issues and PRs about BLIPs that she's not interested in; vice-versa
for Bob who's only interested in BLIPs.

If you still think it's desirable to keep BOLTs and BLIPs in the same
source tree, you could maybe consider the monotree approach that
originated with the Linux kernel project (AFAIK) and which the Bitcoin
Core project began experimenting with about a year ago[1] (to moderate
success AFAICT).


[1] https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/06/24/#bitcoin-core-19071

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Lightning-dev mailing list

Reply via email to