Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
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" To: "Bitcoin Dev" Sent: 9/3/2015 4:18:08 PM Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment 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 ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 ACK - -- - --- Douglas Roark Senior Developer Armory Technologies, Inc. d...@bitcoinarmory.com PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV6bnBAAoJEGybVGGSrcDXoDAQAJyfypOpGjTQZFR4BAbJzOJ0 vbHv2QjBcf8/FJ7BxLyZYyIzwBBfYyacm69fETKgo2JyzfhFb3KsF7M0lsggBKRT R5DFr6GRDXTC1p7L7II3U6oGRQ3yHbxvMyep/6CyJYGaEfdnlTinxYsb4WlFIiPh ZMr9CH+hLHUb4s3Re5/Wl6RNz83ZNeJSAO5o2Iv/2+GCF3Iyh8UfADzDrnMOuWKE 6URhNVvCHvsxYgS/00QN8MW2Dn3txCrUEag10hJ59wlkWRDA26wHosB3m5w/arbO 3OzAkthrkImTYTCusX+Mcitvldc8J88YQD4kNOJvc472j0TTaksl/ubAvDUx1hon aHdQqb/6A+kxhsvHox0BmUmoqDiAGsVPVJinCDVG8QRUDMVbVIhRgPLK5p9ND/Ab B0Nm5zZgtyPnGUrY6Ci22xHmeJKcGVmYMudYEkwOOMK8x0AcnDifMu4NjWxxFwIN Q1CSLuF7FGuAEenO9v/oZklLWrTZ4ewA4pM5uaYtTQHc3AD+Jg3/ZcmHQxDlSQMJ EiaB5rvLXwvlLthDOtr3gEG+8f08KWl0eJijrhd6UQCvEsMje19LAXxuU49u2A3C l1T2XzxPquGC1FfrWCwY+/pGsOaH7eNnCBBnBZGBuXWt3pFL2C0OVWPa3J9ZYj26 PYHDKl1eYP4trWGGY/T2 =G5PZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:18:08PM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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 -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 10f9e95aff6454fedb9d0a4b92a4108e9449c507936f9f18 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Marco Pontello wrote: > 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. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
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: > 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 > -- Try the Online TrID File Identifier http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
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 wrote: > 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 ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment
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