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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1XeKnH-00038Z-Qv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:22:55 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.177 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.177; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f177.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com ([209.85.213.177])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XeKnD-0005BJ-MB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:22:55 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f177.google.com with SMTP id a13so990019igq.16
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.182.4 with SMTP id ca4mr1172765icb.62.1413364966322; Wed,
15 Oct 2014 02:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.159.3 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJCAWXgpzyQnAar6ecKdcci+tdR8yJjCOUpB=xmj-ytZZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCAWXgpzyQnAar6ecKdcci+tdR8yJjCOUpB=xmj-ytZZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:22:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQRWAk6+ZvEaAX+Mp+_dtg9G_h8+tYxtZpVhu=Djb0k7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1XeKnD-0005BJ-MB
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Amir Taaki <genjix@riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:22:56 -0000
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to create a bit of process around the
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips repository.
>
> A) Currently a lot of pulls are open for various BIPs and it is not
> clear who should comment on them, or who decides on changes to be
> merged.
>
> Currently all BIP changes have to go through the Bitcoin Core team,
> which is a narrow bottleneck and makes little sense when you think
> about it. But I don't want to go back to the wiki state in which
> everyone can make arbitrary changes to any BIP - we need to distribute
> the process somehow.
>
> I'd like to propose to make the author (or someone they delegate to)
> the primary contact for each BIP. They should comment on changes, and
> either accept or reject them. If they accept them, the change will be
> merged.
>
> Of course this means that there is a responsibility for the author to
> adhere to BIP 1. For example if your BIP is final, don't allow any
> technical changes. To do small clarifications, spelling or adding
> implementations or examples is OK, but changing or adding to a
> protocol is not - this needs a new BIP. Changing your BIP status
> without community consensus is also not OK.
>
> B) I also think it makes sense to move the BIP discussion (both about
> the BIP process and individual BIPs) to a separate mailing list.
>
> bitcoin-development currently has a dual function: discussion of
> Bitcoin Core implementation concerns, as well as global changes to
> Bitcoin (in the form of BIPs).
>
> This makes the list too busy for some people, but it is critical that
> everyone writing a Bitcoin node or client is up-to-date with proposals
> and can comment on them.
This all makes a lot of sense to me, and would help a lot with the
workflow. Unfortunately github pulls and issues really have nothing
to faciltate a multistage workflow... e.g. where something can go
through several steps.
We're also having problems with people failing to comment on things,
not even "I looked at this and have no opinion", which is really
obstructing things.
|
