MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgR4iGshOgsammWQ93yD0GsckUgroX-sb7mDE7XuQb5k3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgR4iGshOgsammWQ93yD0GsckUgroX-sb7mDE7XuQb5k3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:45:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzvQ2g7Sr3w3_iDCY4WhZ3RuMWdmYOwib6+b4FSbB5LguA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for
 request assignment
Precedence: list

It's a good idea. It would remove friction from the process and
assignment is auditable to boot, something I've had difficulty with in
the past. Almost every time I see a BIP number I would wonder, is that
self-assigned (and thus invalid) or has it been assigned by the BIP
editor.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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