1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE64E5A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:37:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com
[209.85.215.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36B5F15F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:37:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by laboe4 with SMTP id oe4so25447867lab.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=tRnWfQOXr9hW5zNgGTkh0qWkC5irErhoVb2MaU2s0Tk=;
b=cpd467G4nuSYJLWXWw2Bs7dDQohQus3/bwjnRJQODIUImOpwN7CKQOpxXouj0vjKuL
VGMFuOOFdlJm1It7LSOcYrepXHaQAffZLraafAXpKxUsxZYld23GPA5SoeqgBstE9VHO
J+C0SdrEP000toFfnf66F9dVk8Yw46wDaGRz1VkGBkn6f7ajEQQ6RxG/eRZ/SfPxJXiU
pOF8t/u5Tkkj8o6qFLvolapQadpDi+jL2Vdf0JvVCe1YUPdg4fR5jIL/Pu7t2uUal+CE
sZ73upuq38ZVvjBW6hWnJCqJgaBPDIR0PFQ7YiQSLSvzeCI3CV7RapC6/K4TXjBeFYeJ
Berg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkzu5ZU5YD9YQZ0ePIOsUvlcUEv4f6/MtQ+nYJ1RFB+R5i8iILvDCM3hXTbo1rnwTfQBxna
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.7.68 with SMTP id h4mr7617738laa.94.1440891425660; Sat,
29 Aug 2015 16:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABr1YTffo1m6U0DsT1vvoKzcLsnufUnwA8Lo6ipVuhjyoqjMEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABr1YTcoWesaBJaT--bbUUN-c2phc-=3ieWT7vVDNPGg0iHH2g@mail.gmail.com>
<CABr1YTc=aXS4V8gO3cmKrrinFv5BO-3Dpo+TRmSWcd-ed=JdLA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABr1YTffo1m6U0DsT1vvoKzcLsnufUnwA8Lo6ipVuhjyoqjMEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 01:37:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqXByotyZDWL_i7amrhTN_ZwX5X6rpQdpgq-81gTi7B8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:37:08 -0000
Concept ACK. As suggested in the other thread, maybe it is worth to
start a new BIP draft for this?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I posted a new draft of the proposal:
> http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>
> The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I'd love any
> comments or suggestions.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different
>> degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to
>> mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most levels
>> below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention
>>> over things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better
>>> prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their
>>> "level" which is split into five as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
>>> 2. Peer Services
>>> 3. RPC
>>> 4. Implementations
>>> 5. Applications
>>>
>>> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here:
>>> http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>>>
>>> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP
>>> draft for this.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
