From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:06:49 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAAeo5+jSfp5XWj=EYJ_i-XS+=RjxfY-co7+b7iu3Gd=WWHbHzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<10740865.BWG7G26IGS@cherry>
	<CAMBsKS_Fp79jn_zSyzrcJU01Ri1hUtoVPoDf64mB-uDOEYEQbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMBsKS_Fp79jn_zSyzrcJU01Ri1hUtoVPoDf64mB-uDOEYEQbA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201703282106.49852.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:53:30 PM Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> His demand (not suggestion) allows it without any safeguards.
> 
> >This patch must be in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
> 
> That is not a suggestion.

I think it was probably a design requirement more than a demand. It makes 
sense: if we're aiming to have a long lead time for a possible hardfork, we 
want to get the lead time started ASAP. (It could perhaps have been 
communicated clearer, but let's not read hostility into things when 
unnecessary.)

Meta-topic: Can we try a little harder to avoid sequences of multiple brief 
replies in a matter of minutes? Combine them to a single reply.

Luke