1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CB97D5B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:35:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD518151
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:35:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1796238A17C4;
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:35:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160318:btcdrak@gmail.com::Jc25fN+NEBp7TKe5:czE6G
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160318:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::zKuuZUkpmHt0VWWj:BsLj
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:34:52 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org>
<201603162224.32315.luke@dashjr.org>
<CADJgMzsc1znp2tXxHa+LFmeZUnHxEcD+rfexg=5rG1T4=fN07A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzsc1znp2tXxHa+LFmeZUnHxEcD+rfexg=5rG1T4=fN07A@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201603181934.54684.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:38:56 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:35:26 -0000
On Friday, March 18, 2016 9:42:16 AM Btc Drak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> BIP2 does not state the comments section is where discussion happens for
> the BIP, but for a sort of final summary.
Yes, discussion for the BIP still happens on the mailing list.
> > 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.
>
> Seems weak, it's much easier to sign up for a Github account and most have
> one already. It's certainly easier than either paying to get edit
> privileges on the Bitcoin Wiki find someone to convince you're genuine an
> obscure IRC channel.
Weak? What does that even mean? GitHub's terms are no trivial list. It's not a
matter of "easy", but whether you're willing to agree to the terms or not -
and people should be free to participate without doing so. The Bitcoin Wiki
has never had a problem with whitelisting people, and isn't exclusively
available via IRC.
> > 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'm not sure that is the reason why, but in any case, Github is a more
> sensible place because of the collaborative features which is why they
> became the centre of OSS software development for hundreds of thousands of
> projects.
GitHub's collaborative features for the wiki function is clearly inferior.
> > I hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP
> > 2 unmodified?
>
> I am sorry but it has not. I still strongly object to using the Bitcoin
> Wiki or any external source source for the commentary part of BIP2. I
> believe it should be done on using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips. If
> that is not acceptable, then I would suggest a separate page in the bip
> assets folder, called bip<nnnn>/comments.md. On a side note, more complex
> reference implementation code should be stored in that folder too.
Then you're essentially standing in the way of BIP 2 and stalling it.
I have no interest in having to manually approve every single little comment
on BIPs, and I think it's likely nobody will use it if doing so requires such
effort.
> > (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...)
>
> Certainly those could be on the comments page.
|
