BIP-0001: Updates #195

btcdrak · 2015-09-07T10:43:28Z

Clarified about BIP number assignment (not to self-assign, how numbers get assigned specifically).

luke-jr · 2015-09-07T19:45:13Z

bip-0001.mediawiki

@@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ Each BIP should have the following parts:

 * Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed before any BIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the BIP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing code.

+* Copyright notice -- BIPs must contain a copyright notice placing them in the public domain.


We shouldn't require (nor encourage) public domain, as some jurisdictions don't recognise it as valid...

If you dont require public domain then you have to add an additional requirement of permissive licensing, e.g. a specific CC license.

Such a requirement is already in BIP 1.

Ah yes, I missed that.

BIPs maintainers should not merge any BIP pull-requests unless that requirement is met.

luke-jr · 2015-09-07T19:49:07Z

There's a lot of changes here. I suggest starting a new BIP intended to supercede BIP 1.

btcdrak · 2015-09-07T20:15:31Z

There aren't lots of changes! We're simply emphasising the don't self assign numbers rule (which needs to be written down because it's a constant problem for @gmaxwell), and changing how numbers are assigned (not by email but by requesting in a the pull, because it's more efficient and auditable).

The point about WIP is totally optional because it is a departure from the norm not to have some final polishing peer review in pull requests. It's more of a common sense addition, not a change in rules.

sipa · 2015-09-07T22:03:02Z

I think this should be a different BIP that overrides BIP 1. We shouldn't update old BIPs because we want their meaning to change (beyond extra clarification, bugfixes, examples, references, ...).

btcdrak · 2015-09-07T22:43:42Z

Are we seriously going to require a new BIP for a small clarification of details or changing allocation of BIP numbers from email to PR?

Especially BIP-0001 is just a ruleset for how to manage BIPs in the first place.

sipa · 2015-09-07T23:01:21Z

It's a change to the semantics. I don't see why we should change an existing BIP for that.

btcdrak · 2015-09-07T23:09:12Z

The first BIP are the operating procedures for BIPs, unless there was some substantial change, like to the workflow (as I suggested on the ML), I really dont understand how the changes in this PR warrant a new BIP. It's incredibly wasteful - we're not writing legal statues... and these changes could help reduce some friction we've had because it's not explicitly written down and people keep doing things like self assign numbers.

We've been operating with "dont self assign numbers" for as long as I can remember. how is that a change of semantics? @gmaxwell has been plagued by people self assigning numbers, it needs to be documented surely: and documented or not, those are the rules we've been operating under.

Whether BIPs are assigned by pestering the BIP maintainer over email/IRC is requested in the body of the pull request is also such a small change it seems bizarre. Additionally, ever since we moved to Github, people have used PRs as a was to do final review (usually smaller nit, but sometimes larger ones). It works because it's more collaborative than the mailing list. Again it's not a change, it's how we have been operating, I am simply documenting the status quo.

btcdrak · 2015-09-07T23:17:38Z

Here's another example of something that went away when we migrated from the wiki to github

"If the BIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions."

This isn't happening anymore. Authors write their BIPs, discuss on ML/IRC/privately and submit a PR when they have had enough feedback and feel it's ready. Any nits are dealt with in the pull request.

btcdrak · 2015-09-07T23:23:23Z

I have removed superfluous changes. How about this?

maraoz · 2015-09-07T23:29:50Z

ACK

laanwj · 2015-09-08T15:30:31Z

@sipa I agree with that in general, but for the meta-bip I think it makes practical sense to make an exception there:

People will go to BIP1 to learn about writing BIPs. Having it self-contained is a plus
There are no implementations of BIP1 - unless you are sneaky and count the other BIPs, but that'd only matter if there are big structural changes which would 'invalidate' the other BIPs by BIP1

andychase · 2015-09-09T07:28:16Z

bip-0001.mediawiki

@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ There are three kinds of BIP:

 The BIP editors assign BIP numbers and change their status. Please send all BIP-related email to the BIP editor, which is listed under [[#BIP_Editors|BIP Editors]] below. Also see [[#BIP_Editor_Responsibilities__Workflow|BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow]].

+Authors MUST NOT self assign numbers, but may use aliases such as "bip-exampleproposal".


I have a feeling if someone is reading this BIP they are not the type of person that self-assigns.

The readme is the best place for this notice and it's already there (though should be formatted differently).

~~Or not? I thought there was a notice in the readme but I guess I just imagined it.~~ Figured it out. It's in the raw source but doesn't show up on Github due to the way it's formatted: 

In that case I believe the notice should go in the readme after the numbers in bold. That's where people look to see that's free so you catch them just in time: "a simple reminder at the time of the temptation is usually all it takes for people to suddenly 'remember' their honesty."

can the example be changed to bip-johndoe-infinitebitcoins or the like? (I prefer to include the name as duplicate work sometimes gets merged as part of the pre-assignment)

andychase · 2015-09-09T07:47:31Z

@sipa @luke-jr

This BIP actually lists the criterion for replace vs edit right inside it:

BIPs can also be superseded by a different BIP, rendering the original obsolete. This is intended for Informational BIPs, where version 2 of an API can replace version 1.

If we completely revamped the BIP process it might make sense to allocate a new number so the change can be advertised more clearly but in this case the minor change in process should be edited in place to prevent confusion and fragmentation.

Also a "change log" should be added at the top like is done in BIP-0032 to preserve history.

BIP-0001: Updates

Consistency with BOLT 7 makes this much clearer. Closes: bitcoin#195 Reported-by: https://github.com/nayuta-ueno Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>

luke-jr reviewed Sep 7, 2015
View reviewed changes

btcdrak force-pushed the patch-3 branch 2 times, most recently from 3d6d382 to d771442 Compare September 7, 2015 20:05

btcdrak force-pushed the patch-3 branch 2 times, most recently from 6e5b222 to 83b11f0 Compare September 7, 2015 23:22

andychase reviewed Sep 9, 2015
View reviewed changes

Simplify clarifications

aecb84f

btcdrak force-pushed the patch-3 branch 2 times, most recently from bdf907e to e7ddd43 Compare October 21, 2015 05:25

Added changelog

f1320cf

btcdrak force-pushed the patch-3 branch from e7ddd43 to f1320cf Compare October 21, 2015 05:26

luke-jr added the Proposed BIP modification label Oct 23, 2015

gmaxwell added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 15, 2015

Merge pull request #195 from btcdrak/patch-3

989f276

BIP-0001: Updates

gmaxwell merged commit 989f276 into bitcoin:master Nov 15, 2015

btcdrak deleted the patch-3 branch January 1, 2016 18:21

btcdrak mentioned this pull request Jan 1, 2016

BIP1: Clarify and consolidate text regarding early stage idea championing #269

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

BIP-0001: Updates #195

BIP-0001: Updates #195

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

luke-jr Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak Sep 7, 2015

luke-jr Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak Sep 7, 2015

luke-jr commented Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

sipa commented Sep 7, 2015 via email

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

sipa commented Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

maraoz commented Sep 7, 2015

laanwj commented Sep 8, 2015

andychase Sep 9, 2015

andychase Sep 9, 2015

gmaxwell Oct 21, 2015

andychase commented Sep 9, 2015

		@@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ Each BIP should have the following parts:

		* Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed before any BIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the BIP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing code.

		* Copyright notice -- BIPs must contain a copyright notice placing them in the public domain.

		@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ There are three kinds of BIP:

		The BIP editors assign BIP numbers and change their status. Please send all BIP-related email to the BIP editor, which is listed under [[#BIP_Editors\|BIP Editors]] below. Also see [[#BIP_Editor_Responsibilities__Workflow\|BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow]].

		Authors MUST NOT self assign numbers, but may use aliases such as "bip-exampleproposal".

BIP-0001: Updates #195

BIP-0001: Updates #195

Conversation

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

luke-jr Sep 7, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

btcdrak Sep 7, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luke-jr Sep 7, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

btcdrak Sep 7, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luke-jr commented Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

sipa commented Sep 7, 2015 via email

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

sipa commented Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

btcdrak commented Sep 7, 2015

maraoz commented Sep 7, 2015

laanwj commented Sep 8, 2015

andychase Sep 9, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andychase Sep 9, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gmaxwell Oct 21, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andychase commented Sep 9, 2015