Harsha Goli [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2021-11-03 š Original message: We could use an ...
š
Original date posted:2021-11-03
š Original message:
We could use an identicon, we do that with the lightningnetwork repository.
An official logo is probably better - give the project a real symbol.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:37 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Oh, also there's currently this sort of placeholder logo from waaay back
> that's used as the org's avatar/image. Perhaps it's time we roll an
> "official" logo/avatar? Otherwise we can just switch over the randomly
> generated blocks thingy that Github uses when an account/org has no
> avatar.
>
> -- Laolu
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:34 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211102/063833f5/attachment-0001.html>;
š Original message:
We could use an identicon, we do that with the lightningnetwork repository.
An official logo is probably better - give the project a real symbol.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:37 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Oh, also there's currently this sort of placeholder logo from waaay back
> that's used as the org's avatar/image. Perhaps it's time we roll an
> "official" logo/avatar? Otherwise we can just switch over the randomly
> generated blocks thingy that Github uses when an account/org has no
> avatar.
>
> -- Laolu
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:34 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211102/063833f5/attachment-0001.html>;