Olaoluwa Osuntokun [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-11-03 📝 Original message: Circling back to close ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-11-03
📝 Original message:
Circling back to close the loop here:
* The new Github org (https://github.com/lightning) now exists, and all
the
major implementation maintainers have been added to the organization as
admins.
* A new blips repo (https://github.com/lightning/blips) has been created
to
continue the PR that was originally started in the lightning-rfc
repo.
* The old lightning-rfc repo has been moved over, and been renamed to
"bolts"
(https://github.com/lightning/bolts -- should it be all caps? )
Thanks to all that participated in the discussion (particularly in meatspace
during the recent protocol dev meetup!), happy we were able to resolve
things
and begin the next chapter in the evolution of the Lightning protocol!
-- Laolu
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:49 AM Fabrice Drouin <fabrice.drouin at acinq.fr>
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference"
> > implementation. A few years ago some other implementations adopted that
> > title themselves, but have since adopted softer language.
>
> I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was
> the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so
> in a way it was a "reference" at the time ?
> Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the
> spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec" ?
>
> > I think it's worth briefly revisiting a bit of history here w.r.t the
> github
> > org in question. In the beginning, the lightningnetwork github org was
> > created by Joseph, and the lightningnetwork/paper repo was added, the
> > manuscript that kicked off this entire thing. Later lightningnetwork/lnd
> was
> > created where we started to work on an initial implementation (before the
> > BOLTs in their current form existed), and we were added as owners.
> > Eventually we (devs of current impls) all met up in Milan and decided to
> > converge on a single specification, thus we added the BOLTs to the same
> > repo, despite it being used for lnd and knowingly so.
>
> Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time
> before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos,
> accounts...
> I agree that we all inherited things from the "pre-BOLTS" era and
> changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should
> be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the
> current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new
> clean repo.
>
> > As it seems the primary grievance here is collocating an implementation
> of
> > Lightning along with the _specification_ of the protocol, and given that
> the
> > spec was added last, how about we move the spec to an independent repo
> owned
> > by the community? I currently have github.com/lightning, and would be
> happy
> > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
> > "lightning-specs" or something similar.
>
> Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea
> of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so
> it looks that we have a plan!
>
> Fabrice
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211102/c53feb8f/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Circling back to close the loop here:
* The new Github org (https://github.com/lightning) now exists, and all
the
major implementation maintainers have been added to the organization as
admins.
* A new blips repo (https://github.com/lightning/blips) has been created
to
continue the PR that was originally started in the lightning-rfc
repo.
* The old lightning-rfc repo has been moved over, and been renamed to
"bolts"
(https://github.com/lightning/bolts -- should it be all caps? )
Thanks to all that participated in the discussion (particularly in meatspace
during the recent protocol dev meetup!), happy we were able to resolve
things
and begin the next chapter in the evolution of the Lightning protocol!
-- Laolu
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:49 AM Fabrice Drouin <fabrice.drouin at acinq.fr>
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference"
> > implementation. A few years ago some other implementations adopted that
> > title themselves, but have since adopted softer language.
>
> I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was
> the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so
> in a way it was a "reference" at the time ?
> Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the
> spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec" ?
>
> > I think it's worth briefly revisiting a bit of history here w.r.t the
> github
> > org in question. In the beginning, the lightningnetwork github org was
> > created by Joseph, and the lightningnetwork/paper repo was added, the
> > manuscript that kicked off this entire thing. Later lightningnetwork/lnd
> was
> > created where we started to work on an initial implementation (before the
> > BOLTs in their current form existed), and we were added as owners.
> > Eventually we (devs of current impls) all met up in Milan and decided to
> > converge on a single specification, thus we added the BOLTs to the same
> > repo, despite it being used for lnd and knowingly so.
>
> Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time
> before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos,
> accounts...
> I agree that we all inherited things from the "pre-BOLTS" era and
> changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should
> be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the
> current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new
> clean repo.
>
> > As it seems the primary grievance here is collocating an implementation
> of
> > Lightning along with the _specification_ of the protocol, and given that
> the
> > spec was added last, how about we move the spec to an independent repo
> owned
> > by the community? I currently have github.com/lightning, and would be
> happy
> > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
> > "lightning-specs" or something similar.
>
> Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea
> of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so
> it looks that we have a plan!
>
> Fabrice
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211102/c53feb8f/attachment.html>;