BIP 106: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap #191

pull UpalChakraborty wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from UpalChakraborty:patch-1 changing 1 files +80 −0

UpalChakraborty commented at 12:14 PM on September 4, 2015: contributor

Transferred from https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki
Create BIP-1xx.mediawiki d218b6470f
UpalChakraborty cross-referenced this on Sep 4, 2015 from issue Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap by UpalChakraborty
btcdrak commented at 3:30 PM on September 4, 2015: contributor

Can you edit the title of the PR please. "Create BIP-1xx.mediawiki" isnt very meaningful.
UpalChakraborty renamed this:
~~Create BIP-1xx.mediawiki~~
BIP 1xx: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
on Sep 4, 2015
UpalChakraborty commented at 3:36 PM on September 4, 2015: contributor

@btcdrak Oops. My Bad. Done.
luke-jr commented at 4:18 PM on September 4, 2015: member

Also need to update README.mediawiki please. And request a BIP number from @gmaxwell if you haven't already.
UpalChakraborty commented at 6:27 PM on September 4, 2015: contributor

@gmaxwell Requesting to assign a BIP number. @luke-jr Will update README.mediawiki once the BIP number is assigned.
gmaxwell commented at 7:01 PM on September 5, 2015: contributor

106 cheers!
UpalChakraborty renamed this:
~~BIP 1xx: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap~~
BIP 106: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
on Sep 5, 2015
Update and rename BIP-1xx.mediawiki to bip-0106.mediawiki 1e6e07809d
UpalChakraborty commented at 8:11 PM on September 5, 2015: contributor

@gmaxwell Thank you. @luke-jr Pull request to update README.mediawiki has been created - #193.
luke-jr referenced this in commit 2e0d341254 on Sep 5, 2015
luke-jr merged this on Sep 5, 2015
luke-jr closed this on Sep 5, 2015
andychase commented at 10:05 PM on September 5, 2015: contributor

This proposal is missing a copyright declaration which means the author is free to going around suing anyone who copies it in full or uses parts of it in derivative works.
btcdrak commented at 10:07 PM on September 5, 2015: contributor

Was this PR ready for merging? Looks like it was not complete (has two proposals in the specification). It might be good if we establish a [WIP] prefix on the title to indicate a "work in progress" @gmaxwell
luke-jr commented at 11:54 PM on September 5, 2015: member

It's Draft status. Beyond getting the BIP number assigned properly, the author basically has free reign. "[WIP]" sounds fine to me, but really a PR shouldn't be submitted at all until it is ready for review by the BIP author and merging...
UpalChakraborty commented at 11:55 PM on September 5, 2015: contributor

@andychase Regarding copyright declaration, BIP 70, 73, 101 do not have it either. @btcdrak Status: Draft
luke-jr commented at 12:00 AM on September 6, 2015: member

@UpalChakraborty Please do add a proper copyright license in your next revision to the draft. Prior omissions are not really a good reason to neglect it. Thanks :)
btcdrak commented at 10:05 AM on September 7, 2015: contributor

It's Draft status. Beyond getting the BIP number assigned properly, the author basically has free reign. "[WIP]" sounds fine to me, but really a PR shouldn't be submitted at all until it is ready for review by the BIP author and merging... @luke-jr I disagree, a PR is also part of the review process and you need to give enough time for people to review it, spell check it, and iron out the nits. It's probably worth asking the OP if a PR is completely ready if it's not obvious and I think also the repository maintainer should question obvious issues - like this PR has two proposal in it, and is obviously unworkable in that state.
luke-jr referenced this in commit a5437d065b on Jan 20, 2018

Contributors

Linked (view graph)

#188 Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap #193 Update README.mediawiki