Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VYLSU-0007Le-Uh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:48:10 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VYLST-0001ug-8r for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:48:10 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C2271080834; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:48:06 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:47:58 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.15-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.com> In-Reply-To: <791a727f-2188-4848-bd77-ea733c8c5c2c@me.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: <201310211947.59640.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1VYLST-0001ug-8r Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:48:11 -0000 On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote: > 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)? Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular and formal form. > 2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the git repo > or be auto updated from the git repo? Since it's the same format, I'd keep it up there, maybe with a link to the git repo on the main BIP index wiki page. > 3) Even though the information in BIP 50 is valuable, should it really be > considered a BIP? It's a hardforking protocol change, so IMO yes.