From harshagoli at gmail.com Wed Nov 3 02:46:55 2021 From: harshagoli at gmail.com (Harsha Goli) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 22:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We could use an identicon, we do that with the lightningnetwork repository. An official logo is probably better - give the project a real symbol. On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:37 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote: > Oh, also there's currently this sort of placeholder logo from waaay back > that's used as the org's avatar/image. Perhaps it's time we roll an > "official" logo/avatar? Otherwise we can just switch over the randomly > generated blocks thingy that Github uses when an account/org has no > avatar. > > -- Laolu > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:34 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun > wrote: > >> Circling back to close the loop here: >> >> * The new Github org (https://github.com/lightning) now exists, and >> all the >> major implementation maintainers have been added to the organization >> as >> admins. >> >> * A new blips repo (https://github.com/lightning/blips) has been >> created to >> continue the PR that was originally started in the lightning-rfc >> repo. >> >> * The old lightning-rfc repo has been moved over, and been renamed to >> "bolts" >> (https://github.com/lightning/bolts -- should it be all caps? ) >> >> Thanks to all that participated in the discussion (particularly in >> meatspace >> during the recent protocol dev meetup!), happy we were able to resolve >> things >> and begin the next chapter in the evolution of the Lightning protocol! >> >> -- Laolu >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:49 AM Fabrice Drouin >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun >>> wrote: >>> > Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference" >>> > implementation. A few years ago some other implementations adopted >>> that >>> > title themselves, but have since adopted softer language. >>> >>> I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was >>> the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so >>> in a way it was a "reference" at the time ? >>> Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the >>> spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec" ? >>> >>> > I think it's worth briefly revisiting a bit of history here w.r.t the >>> github >>> > org in question. In the beginning, the lightningnetwork github org was >>> > created by Joseph, and the lightningnetwork/paper repo was added, the >>> > manuscript that kicked off this entire thing. Later >>> lightningnetwork/lnd was >>> > created where we started to work on an initial implementation (before >>> the >>> > BOLTs in their current form existed), and we were added as owners. >>> > Eventually we (devs of current impls) all met up in Milan and decided >>> to >>> > converge on a single specification, thus we added the BOLTs to the same >>> > repo, despite it being used for lnd and knowingly so. >>> >>> Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time >>> before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos, >>> accounts... >>> I agree that we all inherited things from the "pre-BOLTS" era and >>> changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should >>> be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the >>> current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new >>> clean repo. >>> >>> > As it seems the primary grievance here is collocating an >>> implementation of >>> > Lightning along with the _specification_ of the protocol, and given >>> that the >>> > spec was added last, how about we move the spec to an independent repo >>> owned >>> > by the community? I currently have github.com/lightning, and would be >>> happy >>> > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like >>> > "lightning-specs" or something similar. >>> >>> Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea >>> of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so >>> it looks that we have a plan! >>> >>> Fabrice >>> >> _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: