From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:24:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201603162224.32315.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzt1BUHo9_tVJF-LG_kkGdR88NVeqXaz9itLN21=R763Xw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:43:09 PM Btc Drak wrote:
> I have an objection about "BIP comments" in BIP2. I think BIPs should be
> self contained, but the specification recommends posting comments to the
> Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sources
> are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of existing
> BIPs which link to external content that has long since expired. Comments
> should be made instead using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips itself (which
> can be enabled in the administration settings).
BIP Comments are not a part of the BIP itself, merely post-completion notes
from various external parties. So having them external does not make the BIP
any less self-contained. Right now, this information takes the form of
reddit/forum comments, IRC chats, etc.
It is important that the forum for comments have a low barrier of use. The
Bitcoin Wiki requires only a request for editing privileges, whereas GitHub
wiki would require reading and agreeing to a lengthy Terms of Service
contract.
In terms of staleness, the Wiki has been shown to stand the test of time, and
is frankly less likely to move than the GitHub repository.
The BIP process originated on the Wiki, and was only moved to GitHub because
stronger moderation was needed (eg, to prevent random other people from
editing someone else's BIP; number self-assignments; etc). Such moderation is
not only unnecessary for BIP Comments, but would be an outright nuisance.
I hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP 2
unmodified?
(On another note, I wonder if we should recommend non-reference implementation
lists/links be moved to BIP Comments rather than constantly revising the BIPs
with them...)
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-16 22:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-08 19:04 Luke Dashjr
2016-03-10 0:36 ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-03-10 15:46 ` Jorge Timón
[not found] ` <56E0BFDC.5070604@musalbas.com>
[not found] ` <201603100053.43822.luke@dashjr.org>
2016-03-10 14:02 ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-03-10 15:59 ` Jorge Timón
2016-03-10 16:28 ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-03-10 16:33 ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-03-10 18:30 ` Jorge Timón
2016-03-10 16:43 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-03-16 20:43 ` Btc Drak
2016-03-16 22:24 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2016-03-18 9:42 ` Btc Drak
2016-03-18 19:34 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-03-18 22:52 ` David A. Harding
2016-03-18 11:59 ` Tom
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201603162224.32315.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=btcdrak@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox