On Monday, April 26th, 2021 at 9:43 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply failed
> >
> > and move on. Luckily its not really all that c
ACK. These seem like very reasonable next steps.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:43 PM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP
seems like this is solved by a workflow where a maintainer who
requests changes clearly tags every entry as "changes needed" or
"review requested",, and then the author can resolve/remove the tag
after the changes are made.
not sure PR's are the right tech here.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 6:28 AM W.
> Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to
> (fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST
> advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing"
> (to
> use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process u
Hi Gloria,
Thanks for your interest in joining.
> A small note - I believe package relay and sponsorship (or other
> fee-bumping primitive) should be separate discussions.
Here my thinking on the question, ideally we would have one generic
fee-bumping primitive suiting any contracting protocol o
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 22:08, Greg Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I endorse Harding's recommendations. On the point about mirroring,
> one thing to keep in mind is that the other repositories may go
> offline.
>
> Modification confusion could be avoided
