From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: IRC meeting agenda, 18:00 UTC Thursday
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:10:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCNR503KwyWgfFCAz=LWAShE7+T63mAi_2SqMn+7Fmjhg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJDVLLv8troMfeyWoOwM3EH4GHYtd=bzUgmg_ZegVT6kXw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1952 bytes --]
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> I won't be able to make it this time. My feeling is IRC is a good place
> to bounce ideas around when time and people happen to be available, but
> having meetings there will inevitably lead to decision making that's better
> done in a slower manner via email.
Well I think regularly scheduled IRC meetings are a good idea, as for some
smaller decisions quick brainstorming tends to work better than long e-mail
threads.
But indeed big and important decisions should be posted on the mailing list
too.
> Comments:
>
> BIP process: are we happy with how it is working? What can we do to improve
> it?
>
> Needing some kind of process to allocate a number is over the top. I
> skipped this for the bloom filtering BIP. We should take off the part of
> the {{BIP}} template that says "don't just pick a number and add a bip" -
> that's exactly what people should do. I'm not sure there's any need for an
> editing role either.
>
Agreed in that we don't need a "number allocation king". But some rules for
the numbering can be good to keep sanity. What about very simply "everyone
that wants to create a BIP picks the next available number and reserves
that page on the Wiki?".
>
> Is it time to feature-freeze 0.8
>
> I'd like more time to get the bloom filtering work in. It'll be easier to
> promote the 0.8 release if we can sell it as "important
> scalability/performance improvement for the network, upgrade to help
> Bitcoin keep growing", as whilst there's no real auto update or organized
> people who religiously update promotion is very important. I think
> ultraprune + bloom filtering is the two major scalability improvements we
> have right now.
>
I'm not sure about a full feature freeze. I agree it could be wise not do
any more changes of the scale of ultraprune before 0.9, to give some
stability to fix the kinks in the current version.
Wladimir
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3693 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-08 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-06 18:47 [Bitcoin-development] " Gavin Andresen
2012-11-06 19:13 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-06 19:56 ` slush
2012-11-06 22:12 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-07 19:37 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-11-08 9:19 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-08 12:56 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-11-08 13:07 ` Gregory Maxwell
[not found] ` <CA+s+GJDVLLv8troMfeyWoOwM3EH4GHYtd=bzUgmg_ZegVT6kXw@mail.gmail.com>
2012-11-08 13:10 ` Wladimir [this message]
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='CA+s+GJCNR503KwyWgfFCAz=LWAShE7+T63mAi_2SqMn+7Fmjhg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=laanwj@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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