From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1E68DC for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:24:51 +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 80DFC176 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:24:51 +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 A385138A1449; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:24:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160316:btcdrak@gmail.com::mKj+6yo/=DP3rvjB:azho0 X-Hashcash: 1:25:160316:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::BmfdPtmBP2rwc1B0:ajpor From: Luke Dashjr To: Btc Drak Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:24:30 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: 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: <201603162224.32315.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: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:11 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:24:52 -0000 On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:43:09 PM Btc Drak wrote: > I have an objection about "BIP comments" in BIP2. I think BIPs should be > self contained, but the specification recommends posting comments to the > Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sources > are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of existing > BIPs which link to external content that has long since expired. Comments > should be made instead using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips itself (which > can be enabled in the administration settings). 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. 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. 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 hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP 2 unmodified? (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...) Luke