On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:01:40PM -0500, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > What do people think about modifying BIP 2 to allow editors to merge these > > kinds of changes without involving the Authors? Strictly speaking, BIP 2 > > shouldn't be changed now that it is Active, but for such a minor revision, > > I > > think an exception is reasonable. > > > > Even minor revisions can not change the meaning of text. Changing a single > word can often have a strange impact on the meaning of the text. There > should be some amount of care exercised here. Maybe it would be okay as > long as edits are mentioned in the changelog at the bottom of each > document, or mention that the primary authors have not reviewed suggested > changes, or something as much; otherwise the reader might not be aware to > check revision history to see what's going on.
As part of this, we may want to say that the BIP editor should cryptographically sign (and ideally timestamp) all their changes as a secondary measure to make it clear who actually made the change. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
