From: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
To: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell@gmail.com>, "Bitcoin Dev"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 18:41:52 +0000
Message-Id: <em4118a7e8-3bd6-45e8-bce1-6c7c2d57e254@platinum>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgR4iGshOgsammWQ93yD0GsckUgroX-sb7mDE7XuQb5k3g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.23181.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for
 request assignment
Precedence: list

I think it's a reasonable approach. Once the number is assigned, the=20
change is made and the pull request is updated.

Only thing is it would be nice to be able to indicate which pull=20
requests are number requests and which pull requests are ready for=20
merging. Perhaps we should make a special label for number requests.

- Eric

------ Original Message ------
From: "Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev"=20
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Bitcoin Dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: 9/3/2015 4:18:08 PM
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for=20
request assignment

>The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for
>storing and presenting BIPs.
>
>I'm thinking of suggesting that the number request process be changed
>to opening a pull req with BIP text with no number (e.g. just using
>the authors name and an index as the number) as the mechenism to
>request number assignment.
>
>Is there any reason that anyone would find this objectionable?
>
>(Please do not respond to this message with anything but a strictly
>directed answer to that question, start a new thread for a different
>subject. Thanks!)
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev