bip174: update changelog for semver/consistency #2145

pull jonatack wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from jonatack:2026-04-bip174-semver changing 1 files +3 −3
  1. jonatack commented at 7:13 PM on April 15, 2026: member

    following up on #2135 (review).

    Per https://semver.org/:

    Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

    MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes
    MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible manner
    PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes

    Per https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/:

    Changelogs are for humans.
    
    Should you ever rewrite a changelog?
    
    Sure. There are always good reasons to improve a changelog.
    
  2. jonatack added the label Metadata Update on Apr 15, 2026
  3. bip174: update changelog for semver/consistency 02dc9b1f35
  4. jonatack force-pushed on Apr 15, 2026
  5. murchandamus commented at 8:33 PM on April 15, 2026: member

    I am not convinced that a metadata update like a Status advancement warrants a bump of MINOR, also see: #2143 (review)

  6. jonatack commented at 8:54 PM on April 15, 2026: member

    I think a status update is reasonably significant.

    For instance, "Version 1.0.0 is used for promotion to Complete" -- so it arguably doesn't make sense that the other status updates would be patch.

  7. achow101 commented at 8:07 PM on April 21, 2026: member

    nah

  8. murchandamus commented at 8:38 PM on April 21, 2026: member

    Closing this, because it was resolved by #2143.

  9. murchandamus closed this on Apr 21, 2026

  10. jonatack commented at 8:59 PM on April 21, 2026: member

    I'd suggest we either:

    (a) clarify in BIP3 that it is not following semver but rather rolling a local optimization, requiring that updaters verify it in BIP3 in order to follow it rather than semver, or

    (b) drop versioning as it probably adds more discussion than it is worth, as BIPs don't have releases, and as there are many BIPs, and a simpler date:change format, as BIP authors writing changelogs were spontaneously doing, would suffice nicely.

  11. murchandamus commented at 9:13 PM on April 21, 2026: member

    As already mentioned in our other conversations, the usage of the version is already specified in BIP3. It mentions the exact semantics and that it is inspired by semver. I understand that the Version header and Changelog might be confusing to people that don’t read the corresponding section of BIP3, but it’s not clear to me how improving the wording of BIP3 would help inform people that don’t read the corresponding section.

    I continue to be of the opinion that the Version header is a useful tool for implementers to track when they should revisit a BIP by taking note which version of the BIP they implemented originally. Without the Version, the benefit of the Changelog would be drastically reduced and would be much closer to just perusing the commit log of the BIP file.

    If you have concrete suggestions how the wording in BIP3 should be improved to make it even clearer, please feel free to open a pull request.

  12. jonatack commented at 9:18 PM on April 21, 2026: member

    If you have concrete suggestions how the wording in BIP3 should be improved to make it even clearer, please feel free to open a pull request.

    Will do


github-metadata-mirror

This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bips. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-05-09 19:10 UTC

This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me