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
108
109
110
111
112
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41114D64
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:24:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.149.115])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBD421F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:24:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t84FOp34048379;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:24:51 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck (cpe-24-164-134-182.nyc.res.rr.com [24.164.134.182])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t84FOgkA007220
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:24:44 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:24:42 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150904152441.GC7589@muck>
References: <CAAS2fgR4iGshOgsammWQ93yD0GsckUgroX-sb7mDE7XuQb5k3g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qtZFehHsKgwS5rPz"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgR4iGshOgsammWQ93yD0GsckUgroX-sb7mDE7XuQb5k3g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: 127473ef-5319-11e5-b399-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdgYUC1AEAgsB AmMbWlJeUll7XWY7 aQ5PbANZfEtNWxtr
WEpWR1pVCwQmRRQF cGFJCWhydwJEen4+ YUBlXD5aXkN+ckUo
FFNRFmwPeGZhPWUC AkNRfh5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd ehsKNVUJTEpDGz86 QApKFjUmG0IIDzk0
ZzYHEhZERQ4NNQ0v KlZpUBogCVccDRc8 V1tAGTJUPEVJTjEw DAxcWEMYDFUA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.164.134.182/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for
request assignment
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: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:24:54 -0000
--qtZFehHsKgwS5rPz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:18:08PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev w=
rote:
> The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for
> storing and presenting BIPs.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Is there any reason that anyone would find this objectionable?
>=20
> (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
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000010f9e95aff6454fedb9d0a4b92a4108e9449c507936f9f18
--qtZFehHsKgwS5rPz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=V0a7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qtZFehHsKgwS5rPz--
|
