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 Withdrawn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
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Withdrawn
Would that place NODE_BLOOM and BIP 38 in Deferred?
On 2013-10-20, at 11:43 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Oct
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:40:26PM -0700, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
>
> I was wondering, would it be possible to create an area where proposals like
> your NODE_BLOOM and BIP 38 could live?
Sure, I think Jeff mentioned the idea of a specific drafts/ directory
within the repository. (could also
I was wondering, would it be possible to create an area where proposals like
your NODE_BLOOM and BIP 38 could live?
On 2013-10-20, at 11:25 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:27:47PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>>> FWIW I th
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:27:47PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > FWIW I think that BIP's should have been done as a github repository,
> > allowing for dealing with this stuff transparently as a pull-request.
> > It'd also be useful to handle BI
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> FWIW I think that BIP's should have been done as a github repository,
> allowing for dealing with this stuff transparently as a pull-request.
> It'd also be useful to handle BIP's that way to make it easy to archive
> them, update them, and keep
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:43:16PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
> FWIW I think that BIP's should have been done as a github repository,
> allowing for dealing with this stuff transparently as a pull-request.
> It'd also be useful to handle BIP's that way to make it easy to archive
> them, update them,
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 05:52:49PM -0700, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> Interesting. The main reason I wrote my proposal was because the only
> proposal that came close to covering the same area was BIP 39, which at that
> time had 2 paragraphs of text (although admittedly did link to a text file
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Since much discussion didn't materialize I went and gave it a
> technical once over, posting to the forum.
At least I now understand where he got the idea of bitcoin devs being a
bunch of paranoid, anti-authoritarian nutjobs :-) I've bee
>> Having it on the BIP page doesn't make it any more official, I agree, but it
>> does increase its exposure and will hopefully spark some more discussion.
>
> Having it on the BIP page *does* make it more official, at least the way
> we've been using the BIP page, which is to filter out the pr
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 04:35:13PM -0700, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> >> See BIP 1 for the process.. proposals go to this mailing list first.
> >
> > FWIW, he did post to the mailing list and he got an underwhelming response:
> >
> > http://sou
On 2013-10-19, at 4:20 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
>> See BIP 1 for the process.. proposals go to this mailing list first.
>
> FWIW, he did post to the mailing list and he got an underwhelming response:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/fo
I submitted the proposal to the mailing list on July 19, 2003.
On 2013-10-19, at 3:29 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Saturday, October 19, 2013 9:16:24 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
>> I have a question regarding this part. I wrote a BIP for base 58 encoding /
>> encryption of BIP 32 root keys. The BI
On 2013-10-19, at 4:21 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> I submitted the proposal to the mailing list on July 19, 2003.
That would be 2013. sorry.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> See BIP 1 for the process.. proposals go to this mailing list first.
FWIW, he did post to the mailing list and he got an underwhelming response:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20ec1e35-3051-45d6-b449-e4a4d5c06dc8%40me.co
On Saturday, October 19, 2013 9:16:24 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> I have a question regarding this part. I wrote a BIP for base 58 encoding /
> encryption of BIP 32 root keys. The BIP page states that we shouldn't add
> to this list ourselves, but should contact you for a BIP number. I have
> co
I was hoping to see something interesting and useful, but all I saw was
absurd ranting. Example quote:
It is not known where bitcoin contributors are based. Gavin Andersson, a
major contributor, is a well-known South African
anarchist/crypto-libertarian. Most contributors hide their identities.
I
On 2013-10-19, at 1:40 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> "I wasn't even allowed to edit the wiki"
>
> I'm confused about this, if he's referring to en.bitcoin.it. Editing
> it is open to anyone who is willing to pay the 0.01
> (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BitcoinPayment) anti-spam fee. This isn't
>
Hi!
Gregory, thank you for your time and answers. Just maybe to clarify
where Nick is coming from, there are two previous articles:
http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290m-ocpp/site/article/nmerrill-assign1.html
http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290m-ocpp/site/article/nmerrill-assign2.html
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
> Interesting read:
> http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290m-ocpp/site/article/nmerrill-assign3.html
Hopefully Nick will show up someplace and offer some specific pointers
to where we failed him.
The only interaction I can find from him on I
On 19 October 2013 18:38, Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Interesting read:
>
>
> http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290m-ocpp/site/article/nmerrill-assign3.html
>
Im sympathetic to some of the points, but it seems slightly harsh. I do
agree that we're lucky to have the excellent leadership of Gavin,
Hi!
Interesting read:
http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290m-ocpp/site/article/nmerrill-assign3.html
Mitar
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Inte
28 matches
Mail list logo
