> I like the idea of decentralizing the BIPs process. It is a historical
> artifact that the bips repository is part of the same organization that
> bitcoin core is part of. But there shouldn't be the perception that
> standardization is driven by that, or that there is any kind of
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 22:08, Greg Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I endorse Harding's recommendations. On the point about mirroring,
> one thing to keep in mind is that the other repositories may go
> offline.
>
> Modification confusion could be avoided
> Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to
> (fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST
> advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing"
> (to
> use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process
seems like this is solved by a workflow where a maintainer who
requests changes clearly tags every entry as "changes needed" or
"review requested",, and then the author can resolve/remove the tag
after the changes are made.
not sure PR's are the right tech here.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 6:28 AM
ACK. These seem like very reasonable next steps.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:43 PM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > In general, I think its time we all agree the
On Monday, April 26th, 2021 at 9:43 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply failed
> >
> > and move on. Luckily its not really all that
I endorse Harding's recommendations. On the point about mirroring,
one thing to keep in mind is that the other repositories may go
offline.
Modification confusion could be avoided by recording what revision
(commit hash) was current at the time of inclusion, but the document
going offline can
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply failed
> and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed protocol
> documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect.
Alright, let's see...
Sorting by most recently updated...
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?page=1=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+updated%3A%3E2021-01-01
#1104 has been updated nearly daily for the past many weeks. You commented 12 days ago saying "Concept NACK" (which
isn't a thing
On Sunday 25 April 2021 21:14:08 Matt Corallo wrote:
> On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special
> > treatment, and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the
> > currently-defined BIP process.
>
> Again, please don't play
On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote:
On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote:
If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the
author's approval (which appears to be occurring here),
It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get
On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote:
> If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the
> author's approval (which appears to be occurring here),
It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to
them all in due time, likely
There appears to be some severe lack of understanding of the point of the BIP
process here.
The BIP process exists to be a place for those in the Bitcoin development community (which includes anyone who wishes to
participate in it!) to place specifications which may be important for others in
13 matches
Mail list logo
