Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112)

From: Jorge Timón <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:14:10 +0100

On Nov 26, 2015 12:06 AM, "Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev" <
[email-masked]> wrote:
> Again my objection would go away if we renamed nSequence, but I actually
think the nSequence name is better...

I suggested to rename nSequence to nMaturity on this list even before the
bips and implementations were started, probably too late now.
Before the implementation "let's think about those naming details later".
After the implementation "now it's too late, now we would need to change
the implementation, this renaming is now unnecessarily disruptive".

Reminds me of refactors and major releases:
At the beginning of the release "not now, this will disrupt development of
feature X"
After feature X is merged or replaced by feature Y: "too late in the
release cycle, refactors should be done only at the beginning, at the end
is 'too risky' ".
Sigh, I hope I find the "right time" (not both too soon and too late like
this time), next time...