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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <ampedal@gmail.com>) id 1R5URi-0000sl-4V
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:23:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.42; envelope-from=ampedal@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qw0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-qw0-f42.google.com ([209.85.216.42])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R5URh-0007Yd-9o
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:23:02 +0000
Received: by qwi4 with SMTP id 4so14107197qwi.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.68.84 with SMTP id u20mr1604974qci.288.1316402575167; Sun,
18 Sep 2011 20:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.227.137 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201109182104.45994.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201109182104.45994.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:22:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL0fb61B6bqGMhWtCgvy0xwfHQ_nvmhbb9uLJQWx3biENhVJNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Waters <ampedal@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(ampedal[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1R5URh-0007Yd-9o
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Enhancement Proposals (BEPS)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:23:02 -0000
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/ is a good reference if you're
interested in seeing how PEPs work in action. I would be more than
willing to maintain a similar index if that's what people want.
Something to note is that Python does not use Git or GitHub (AFAIK).
So we would need to update 001 to reflect the BEP involvement with
Git, or transition away from it completely (which I discourage).
My full-time experience as a project manager with Basecamp, Redmine,
Teamlab, Pivotal Tracker, SVN, and custom VC has taught me that it is
hard to find a good solution for the organization of the development
life cycle. Having examined Bitcoin for the past three weeks, it is
hard to discern the willingness to implement meta changes.
It looks like Git/GitHub is working, but not ideal for everyone. My
opinion is that there will always be a missing feature in VC systems.
My major gripes with GitHub are the lack of prioritization options,
voting system, and reporting/metrics.
Gavin has asked me to research various O/S projects, to see how they
are doing things. I have been focused mostly on organizing a pull
testing system, and learning the testing process - but I can spend
more time on meta organization if that is in demand. It would be
helpful to me if I could hear some feedback on what needs changing,
and how important it is.
My recommendation is that we continue with the current system, but
plan alternative organization voting around the time of 0.5 release.
This could be an alternative to GitHub, or a supplement, or neither.
Seeing as we are still in Beta, I don't believe there needs immense
structure until we approach 1.0. The PEP system is outstanding, and is
clearly a solid alternative/supplement to consider.
-Alex
|
