Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
7 messages, 3 to 4 Sep 2015. Started by Greg Maxwell.
Greg Maxwell (2), Btc Drak, Marco Pontello, Peter Todd, Douglas Roark, Eric Lombrozo
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!)
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)
> 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 > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
None that I can see. In fact I was just about to ask for some details about this part of the process, so this come just at the right time.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (18 lines)
> 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 > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Marco Pontello <marcopon@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (3 lines)
> None that I can see. > In fact I was just about to ask for some details about this part of the > process, so this come just at the right time.
We used to have a WIKI page for all the BIP stuff and that worked better IMO, the use of git(hub) for it was a step forward in a number of ways but made the number assignment part an odd duck. We should have fixed it then, but it wasn't obvious (enough) that it needed fixing at the time. Live and learn.
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:18:08PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (13 lines)
> 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!)
ACK
ACK
- -- - --- Douglas Roark Senior Developer Armory Technologies, Inc. doug@bitcoinarmory•com PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7
I think it's a reasonable approach. Once the number is assigned, the change is made and the pull request is updated.
Only thing is it would be nice to be able to indicate which pull requests are number requests and which pull requests are ready for merging. Perhaps we should make a special label for number requests.
- Eric
------ Original Message ------ From: "Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> To: "Bitcoin Dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> Sent: 9/3/2015 4:18:08 PM Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
Quoted text (17 lines)
>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 >bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev