Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-03-16 📝 Original message:On Wednesday, March 16, ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-03-16
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:43:09 PM Btc Drak wrote:
> I have an objection about "BIP comments" in BIP2. I think BIPs should be
> self contained, but the specification recommends posting comments to the
> Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sources
> are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of existing
> BIPs which link to external content that has long since expired. Comments
> should be made instead using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips itself (which
> can be enabled in the administration settings).
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.
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.
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 hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP 2
unmodified?
(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...)
Luke
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:43:09 PM Btc Drak wrote:
> I have an objection about "BIP comments" in BIP2. I think BIPs should be
> self contained, but the specification recommends posting comments to the
> Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sources
> are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of existing
> BIPs which link to external content that has long since expired. Comments
> should be made instead using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips itself (which
> can be enabled in the administration settings).
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.
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.
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 hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP 2
unmodified?
(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...)
Luke