René Pickhardt [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-11-27 📝 Original message: Hey Rusty, No matter how ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-11-27
📝 Original message:
Hey Rusty,
No matter how we agree for the process I suggest to create a wiki page on
which we make it transparent and link to it from README.md.
The current process was new to me and I think one cannot expect newcomers
to read through the entire Mailinglist.
As soon as we have an agreement I can create this PR together with more
useful information for newcomers.
Best regards Rene
Am Di., 27. Nov. 2018, 01:13 hat Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>
geschrieben:
> +100 for IRC meetings, though, really, I'd much much stronger prefer
> substantive discussion happen on GitHub or the mailing list. Doing
> finalization in a live meeting is really unfair to those who can't find the
> time to attend regularly (or happen to miss the one where that thing was
> discussed that they care about).
>
> > On Nov 26, 2018, at 18:29, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As you may know, for 1.0 spec we had a biweekly Google Hangout,
> > at 5:30am Adelaide time (Monday 19:00 UTC, or 20:00 UTC Q3/4). You can
> > see the minutes of all meetings here:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oU4wxzGsYd0T084rTXJbedb7Gvdtj4ax638nMkYUmco
> >
> > The current process rules are:
> >
> > 1. Any substantive spec change requires unanimous approval at the
> > meeting before application.
> > 2. Any implementation changes generally require two interoperable
> > implementations before they are considered final.
> > 3. "typo, formatting and spelling" fixes which can be applied after two
> > acks without a meeting necessary.
> >
> > It's time to revisit this as we approach 1.1:
> >
> > 1. Should we move to an IRC meeting? Bitcoin development does this.
> > It's more inclusive, and better recorded. But it can be
> > lower-bandwidth.
> >
> > 2. Should we have a more formal approval method for PRs, eg. a
> > "CONSENSUS:YES" tag we apply once we have acks from two teams and no
> > Naks, then a meeting to review consensus, followed by "FINAL" tag and
> > commit the next meeting? That gives you at least two weeks to
> > comment on the final draft.
> >
> > Side note: I've added milestones to PRs as 1.0/1.1; I'm hoping to clear
> > all 1.0 PRs this week for tagging in the next meeting, then we can start
> > on 1.1 commits.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Rusty.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lightning-dev mailing list
> > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181127/bcd1d1ff/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Hey Rusty,
No matter how we agree for the process I suggest to create a wiki page on
which we make it transparent and link to it from README.md.
The current process was new to me and I think one cannot expect newcomers
to read through the entire Mailinglist.
As soon as we have an agreement I can create this PR together with more
useful information for newcomers.
Best regards Rene
Am Di., 27. Nov. 2018, 01:13 hat Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>
geschrieben:
> +100 for IRC meetings, though, really, I'd much much stronger prefer
> substantive discussion happen on GitHub or the mailing list. Doing
> finalization in a live meeting is really unfair to those who can't find the
> time to attend regularly (or happen to miss the one where that thing was
> discussed that they care about).
>
> > On Nov 26, 2018, at 18:29, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As you may know, for 1.0 spec we had a biweekly Google Hangout,
> > at 5:30am Adelaide time (Monday 19:00 UTC, or 20:00 UTC Q3/4). You can
> > see the minutes of all meetings here:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oU4wxzGsYd0T084rTXJbedb7Gvdtj4ax638nMkYUmco
> >
> > The current process rules are:
> >
> > 1. Any substantive spec change requires unanimous approval at the
> > meeting before application.
> > 2. Any implementation changes generally require two interoperable
> > implementations before they are considered final.
> > 3. "typo, formatting and spelling" fixes which can be applied after two
> > acks without a meeting necessary.
> >
> > It's time to revisit this as we approach 1.1:
> >
> > 1. Should we move to an IRC meeting? Bitcoin development does this.
> > It's more inclusive, and better recorded. But it can be
> > lower-bandwidth.
> >
> > 2. Should we have a more formal approval method for PRs, eg. a
> > "CONSENSUS:YES" tag we apply once we have acks from two teams and no
> > Naks, then a meeting to review consensus, followed by "FINAL" tag and
> > commit the next meeting? That gives you at least two weeks to
> > comment on the final draft.
> >
> > Side note: I've added milestones to PRs as 1.0/1.1; I'm hoping to clear
> > all 1.0 PRs this week for tagging in the next meeting, then we can start
> > on 1.1 commits.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Rusty.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lightning-dev mailing list
> > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181127/bcd1d1ff/attachment.html>;