Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-10-21 📝 Original message:On Monday, October 21, ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-10-21
📝 Original message:On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?
Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular and
formal form.
> 2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the git repo
> or be auto updated from the git repo?
Since it's the same format, I'd keep it up there, maybe with a link to the git
repo on the main BIP index wiki page.
> 3) Even though the information in BIP 50 is valuable, should it really be
> considered a BIP?
It's a hardforking protocol change, so IMO yes.
📝 Original message:On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?
Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular and
formal form.
> 2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the git repo
> or be auto updated from the git repo?
Since it's the same format, I'd keep it up there, maybe with a link to the git
repo on the main BIP index wiki page.
> 3) Even though the information in BIP 50 is valuable, should it really be
> considered a BIP?
It's a hardforking protocol change, so IMO yes.