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
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WVy8R-0007R0-5Y
for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:01:55 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WVy8Q-0006Tr-8v
for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:01:55 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hl10so579572igb.6
for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.122.8 with SMTP id lo8mr1275473igb.31.1396594908940; Fri,
04 Apr 2014 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.70.131 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <533E29F0.1080901@jerviss.org>
References: <CAPg+sBh1_mYH4JNv1xTFnLsoC=qzmgi0QaLAyd7YeQ=wZQBDSQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1784069.HYVIiriube@crushinator> <533E29F0.1080901@jerviss.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:01:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJBr-UOqYFGVpann-yUkmB5oj4a7fu=GKw-34+4UMbsP1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015384fe71514504f632174a
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1WVy8Q-0006Tr-8v
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin
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: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:01:55 -0000
--089e015384fe71514504f632174a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:41 AM, kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org> wrote:
> Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be
> 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.
> >
> At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I
> looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format. As far
> as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates
> ISO 8601 by half a decade.
>
> Since we don't have half a gajillion mail servers to patch, we could, if
> we desired, adopt a sensible date format here. The cost to the
> community would be minimal, with probably not more than a half dozen
> people needing to update scripts. It could even be as simple as one guy
> running sed s/parseabomination/parsedate/g
>
BIPs were based on Python PIPs, PIPs use this same ordering but spell out
the month like '1-Oct-2000'. This is slightly more readable than our format.
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/
But to make it more confusing they have two different date conventions
within the header (one for the modified date, and one for the created date).
Personally I'd prefer to standardize on ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) dates as well.
Feel free to submit a pull against bips/bips that changes around the dates.
Wladimir
--089e015384fe71514504f632174a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:41 AM, kjj <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bit=
coin-devel@jerviss.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org</a>>=
</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">Matt Whit=
lock wrote:<br>
> The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should b=
e 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.<br>
><br>
</div>At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then=
I<br>
looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format. =C2=A0As far=
<br>
as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates<br>
ISO 8601 by half a decade.<br>
<br>
Since we don't have half a gajillion mail servers to patch, we could, i=
f<br>
we desired, adopt a sensible date format here. =C2=A0The cost to the<br>
community would be minimal, with probably not more than a half dozen<br>
people needing to update scripts. =C2=A0It could even be as simple as one g=
uy<br>
running sed s/parseabomination/parsedate/g<br></blockquote><div><br></div>B=
IPs were based on Python PIPs, PIPs use this same ordering but spell out th=
e month like '1-Oct-2000'. This is slightly more readable than our =
format.<br>
<div><br><a href=3D"http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/">http://leg=
acy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/</a><br><br></div><div>But to make it more=
confusing they have two different date conventions within the header (one =
for the modified date, and one for the created date).<br>
</div><div><br><div>Personally I'd prefer to standardize on ISO 8601 (Y=
YYY-MM-DD) dates as well.<br><br></div><div>Feel free to submit a pull agai=
nst bips/bips that changes around the dates.<br></div><br>Wladimir<br></div=
>
</div><br></div></div>
--089e015384fe71514504f632174a--
|
