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 4BBB9F1A for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 23:45:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DF591BF for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 23:45:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so1156510wic.0 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:45:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=lQA3W0CCCKpk81cEjjPFa1k5j7bgJXLW/65SJgsFgaw=; b=scRRn9ANhtQ18N0GUYXWkYYCriH2JCxkfa+3fZcpmsPLUUxmsvRyOg7cLxp3QaI91N ZG48nTeAYFrbPevVeIWelvGCBUHzo5nIRXoKsiKE0bQkxhT7uC2v0oEn6RPnqFPBOAAS G1OMC18FAyEBak322NKMQDoiOjFxU//e9s++kdnqADX2KDT/purKUstuZqJEJJf0d172 KN8eKGKC5ZxkDpSccA8WQMl36kRgpniE8B+y7GO+lWs0xuzfxVYpgbobgxhBQp+OyZH3 dE4DXz8jgiAzNn0FacOOqJiflZfvxGw3i8dCm32Nb2xc40g7OKpi7ra3P90ZU0yu5EO4 ENPA== X-Received: by 10.194.191.164 with SMTP id gz4mr1122278wjc.21.1441323933259; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:45:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:45:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:45:13 +0100 Message-ID: To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no 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] Proposed minor change to BIP 01 to use a PR for request assignment 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, 03 Sep 2015 23:45:35 -0000 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 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