On 21/10/13 21:47, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
>> 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?
>
> Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular and
> formal form.
I wanted to have a look at
I believe a better solution would to use a github clone such as gitlab,
which sits on top of the git repo, and allows for custom code around the
BIP process. Potentially one could even build Bitcoin into such a BIP
system. If somebody wants to support a BIP he donates Bitcoins to that
proposal. Som
I believe a better solution would to use a gitlab clone such as gitlab,
which sits on top of the git repo, and allows for custom code around the
BIP process. Potentially one could even build Bitcoin into such a BIP
system. If somebody wants to support a BIP he donates Bitcoins to that
proposal. Som
On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?
Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular and
formal form.
> 2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the
I have some more questions.1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the git repo or be auto updated from the git repo?3) Even though the information in BIP 50 is valuable, should it really be considered a BI
Added: I'm happy with gmaxwell as BIP editor as well, as he is
apparently the current BIP-number-assigner-in-chief. :)
The goal is to improve the process, hash-seal our specs, and create an
easy way for anyone with at least an email address to participate.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Jeff
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Andreas Schildbach
wrote:
> I accept the nomination as a backup (-:
Cool.
> So the duty of the editor is merging pull requests and/or proxying
> between email and git for those who do not use git?
Correct. And assigning BIP numbers. Ideally a boring administr
On 10/21/2013 04:34 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> I'll volunteer as the BIPS editor.
>
> There needs to be some backups with commit access to bips.git, in case
> the BIPS editor is hit by a bus or goes crazy or on vacation. This
> can be some core devs, but I would like at least one or two folks who
>
Continuing. (grumble gmail grumble)
As with the IETF, there will be a great many drafts that do not make
it to BIPS status. That is normal, and a sign of a healthy process.
I'll volunteer as the BIPS editor.
There needs to be some backups with commit access to bips.git, in case
the BIPS editor
This summarizes some rambling on IRC about revising the BIPS process.
Right now, the BIPS process is a bit haphazard. Previously, BIPS were
in a git repo, and the BIPS on the wiki were locked against editing.
The BIPS editor at the time started off well, but was eventually
M.I.A. So the BIPS "ho
I think it's great to move BIPs to github.
I also agree with the states -> directories mapping.
Git manages moved files well.
On 10/21/13, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
>
> On 2013-10-21, at 2:44 AM, Arto Bendiken wrote:
>
>>
>> Indeed. The BIP analogs that immediately come to mind would be the
>>
On 2013-10-21, at 2:44 AM, Arto Bendiken wrote:
>
> Indeed. The BIP analogs that immediately come to mind would be the
> enhancement proposal processes for Python, XMPP, and BitTorrent:
Bitcoin's BIP process is directly based off of Python's PEP process.
Quote from BIP 1, History:
This docu
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Melvin Carvalho
wrote:
>
> I've followed quite a few FLOSS projects over the years. Overall, I've been
> amazingly impressed with the BIP process (dont forget it's used in other
> systems too -- python?). It seems an agile process, that strikes an great
> balanc
On 21 October 2013 09:03, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 21/10/13 08:52, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > How about putting them into sub directories that map onto the status of
> the BIP?
> >
> > Reading BIP 1, that would make:
> >
> > Accepted
> > Active
> > Draft
> > Deferred
> > Final
> > Rejected
>
On 21/10/13 09:07, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> The list comes from BIP 1.
Sorry, I haven't meant you personally. It was just a generic question
about using existing process instead of inventing a new one on the go.
>> Have it been considered to do this via IETF? The process there is hardened
>>
On 21/10/13 08:52, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> How about putting them into sub directories that map onto the status of the
> BIP?
>
> Reading BIP 1, that would make:
>
> Accepted
> Active
> Draft
> Deferred
> Final
> Rejected
> Replaced
> Withdrawn
Have it been considered to do this via IETF? The
The list comes from BIP 1.
On 2013-10-21, at 12:03 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 21/10/13 08:52, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
>> How about putting them into sub directories that map onto the status of the
>> BIP?
>>
>> Reading BIP 1, that would make:
>>
>> Accepted
>> Active
>> Draft
>> Deferre
17 matches
Mail list logo
