On Friday, March 18, 2016 9:42:16 AM Btc Drak wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > > 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. > > BIP2 does not state the comments section is where discussion happens for > the BIP, but for a sort of final summary.
Yes, discussion for the BIP still happens on the mailing list. > > 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. > > Seems weak, it's much easier to sign up for a Github account and most have > one already. It's certainly easier than either paying to get edit > privileges on the Bitcoin Wiki find someone to convince you're genuine an > obscure IRC channel. Weak? What does that even mean? GitHub's terms are no trivial list. It's not a matter of "easy", but whether you're willing to agree to the terms or not - and people should be free to participate without doing so. The Bitcoin Wiki has never had a problem with whitelisting people, and isn't exclusively available via IRC. > > 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'm not sure that is the reason why, but in any case, Github is a more > sensible place because of the collaborative features which is why they > became the centre of OSS software development for hundreds of thousands of > projects. GitHub's collaborative features for the wiki function is clearly inferior. > > I hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP > > 2 unmodified? > > I am sorry but it has not. I still strongly object to using the Bitcoin > Wiki or any external source source for the commentary part of BIP2. I > believe it should be done on using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips. If > that is not acceptable, then I would suggest a separate page in the bip > assets folder, called bip<nnnn>/comments.md. On a side note, more complex > reference implementation code should be stored in that folder too. Then you're essentially standing in the way of BIP 2 and stalling it. I have no interest in having to manually approve every single little comment on BIPs, and I think it's likely nobody will use it if doing so requires such effort. > > (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...) > > Certainly those could be on the comments page. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
