bip174: Explain BIP2 status in Changelog #2143

pull murchandamus wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from murchandamus:bip174-fixup-changelog changing 2 files +58 −58

murchandamus commented at 3:32 PM on April 15, 2026: member

Update the changelog in BIP174 to explain the mention of "Final" in contrast to the "Deployed" state.
bip174: Explain BIP2 status in Changelog 777ca76c2e
murchandamus added the label Metadata Update on Apr 15, 2026
in bip-0174.mediawiki:590 in 777ca76c2e outdated
```
 586 | @@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ able to be unserialized by an unserializer for the PSBT format.
 587 |  ** Introduce type registry auxiliary file
 588 |  ** Add changelog
 589 |  * '''1.4.1''' (2021-01-14):
 590 | -** Mark Final
 591 | +** Mark Final (Later updated to "Deployed" with adoption of BIP3)
```
jonatack commented at 6:59 PM on April 15, 2026:

A more explicit alternative would be to instead add a minor version update like:

* '''1.5.0''' (2026-04-15): ** Update status from Final to Deployed per activation of BIP3

WDYT?
murchandamus commented at 8:25 PM on April 15, 2026:

Per https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md#changelog-section-and-version-header:

The MAJOR version is incremented if changes to the BIP’s Specification are introduced that are incompatible with prior versions (which should be rare after a BIP is Complete, and only happen in well-grounded exceptional cases to a BIP that is Deployed). The MINOR version is incremented whenever the specification of the BIP is changed or extended in a backward-compatible way. The PATCH version is incremented for other changes to the BIP that are noteworthy (bug fixes, test vectors, important clarifications, etc.).

Removing the duplicated, externally defined types didn’t change what this BIP specifies, it just changed how type collisions are prevented across PSBTs in general. Updating metadata like a Status doesn’t change the Specification either, so I don’t see why either would warrant a change in the MINOR version.

Having a separate line sounds reasonable to me, although I’m not looking forward to backfilling this to all affected BIPs.

murchandamus commented at 8:30 PM on April 15, 2026:

I guess one could see preventing collisions as part of BIP174’s design and then a bump of MINOR would make sense.
jonatack commented at 6:59 PM on April 15, 2026: member

Concept ACK
murchandamus added the label Pending acceptance on Apr 15, 2026
bip174: Fix relative paths to other BIPs e1755b8257

Contributors

murchandamus

jonatack

Labels

Pending acceptance Metadata Update