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 A13BF7AD for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:00:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87A3D1A6 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igxp17 with SMTP id p17so124669861igx.1 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:00:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vinumeris.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yJFk2x2XRpf5FM8sdIBF3bDKZRwOYmwSMVIofW5bplU=; b=c1eN9U39pAN4ki7HC9RlyLUC59HPcn2KT/NxAJs1TfrY6vUGC8wD4xK1OOJ074BO8D z2PidjqHmB3bfuBPsv7krjst+MojFBaA3sr0jtATePX1GP3bB0ymksKlNIvH7yxf7Fql G24jvuf3FNrXqSZ1BYM8W6wW4VeJVAuOesIVU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yJFk2x2XRpf5FM8sdIBF3bDKZRwOYmwSMVIofW5bplU=; b=QW9Lk18DHSd7S1nMhi/uxII5q1WVr1VaNJLVChUMWKkY1LvpkY2ogubi2EvRUOKi0D jXgZMf2C3uScGz9p8sIuIfxMdKGHdaZzgRa0c3EypcIqScRufkDVzadQ9rW0QVsSFJvP 0+BfCzEDLcVY2fH1thqa0YbgctggMkiviDLbCqeZej5UxdRZdUq4RcsiI596WT6P2LsW Z9dK3qxz0jzKK9Yc8ZPpMc6NwAZnCzcxjl8gHkZNJDHCM2X1iTqRO62ETM99tUdlEkgo Zgj2senw999KR0ZCWXIUgHMwy+H0sUQqPlzuq0fbJd03k41amZ5mLRq0GffVbyDAdcOe zHlg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmv4p9aru6xhxlXpFVpGiQGbkyBVBNqh5ynikCJNA68SN+EX6HKjm/H9YaseSPBTaOl9E3P MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.124.4 with SMTP id me4mr7969608igb.34.1440061214837; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.208.7 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:00:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Adam Back Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111d0c82a6d8b051dba61fa X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork 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: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:00:16 -0000 --089e0111d0c82a6d8b051dba61fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review process I keep seeing this notion crop up. I want to kill this idea right now: - There were months of public discussion leading to up the authoring of BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere. - BIP 101 was submitted for review via the normal process. Jeff Garzik specifically called Gavin out on Twitter and thanked him for following the process: https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/614412097359708160 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/163 As you can see, other than a few minor typo fixes and a comment by sipa, there was no other review offered. - The implementation for BIP 101 was submitted to Bitcoin Core as a pull request, to invoke the code review process: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341 Some minor code layout suggestions were made by Cory and incorporated. Peter popped up to say there was no chance it'd ever be accepted ..... and no further review was done. So the entire Bitcoin Core BIP process was followed to the letter. The net result was this. There were, in fact, bugs in the implementation of BIP 101. They were found when Gavin submitted the code to the XT community review process, which resulted in *actual* peer review. Additionally, there was much discussion of technical details on the XT mailing list that Bitcoin Core entirely ignored. --089e0111d0c82a6d8b051dba61fa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It is just that no one else is reckless enough t= o bypass the review=C2=A0process

I keep see= ing this notion crop up.

I want to kill this idea = right now:
  • There were months of public discussion leading= to up the authoring of BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere.
  • BIP 101 was submitted for review via the normal process. Jef= f Garzik specifically called Gavin out on Twitter and thanked him for follo= wing the process:

    https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/614412097359708160
    https://github.c= om/bitcoin/bips/pull/163

    As you can see, other than a few minor = typo fixes and a comment by sipa, there was no other review offered.
  • The implementation for BIP 101 was submitted to Bitcoin Core as a= pull request, to invoke the code review process:

    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/p= ull/6341

    Some minor code layout suggestions were made by Cory an= d incorporated. Peter popped up to say there was no chance it'd ever be= accepted ..... and no further review was done.
So the entire= Bitcoin Core BIP process was followed to the letter. The net result was th= is. There were, in fact, bugs in the implementation of BIP 101. They were f= ound when Gavin submitted the code to the XT community review process, whic= h resulted in actual=C2=A0peer review. Additionally, there was much = discussion of technical details on the XT mailing list that Bitcoin Core en= tirely ignored.


--089e0111d0c82a6d8b051dba61fa--