A request for BIP 102 was "a variant that does not require revisiting", so a small step was included per the current thinking on small-step small-shock.
NOTE: Creates new "drafts" directory to illustrate different proposal technique.
BIP 108: Block size increase to 2MB + small steps (BIP 102 variant w/ small steps) #263
pull jgarzik wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from jgarzik:bip202 changing 1 files +44 −0-
jgarzik commented at 1:17 PM on December 18, 2015: contributor
-
BIP 202: 102 + small steps 87aacb6a58
-
MarcoFalke commented at 4:16 PM on December 18, 2015: member
Just for the record: @gmaxwell Did you assign this BIP number?
-
jgarzik commented at 4:40 PM on December 18, 2015: contributor
He didn't - proper number assignment appreciated
The index was intentionally not updated, for this reason.
-
Remove BIP 202 label, move into drafts directory. e8f455ce8d
- jgarzik renamed this:
BIP 202: 102 + small steps
BIP-draft: BIP 102 variant w/ small steps
on Dec 18, 2015 -
jgarzik commented at 6:02 PM on December 18, 2015: contributor
Updated to illustrate a BIP-number-neutral, IETF-like technique, parallel process. Proposed process:
- BIP author creates PR to store unnumbered BIP in drafts/ Naming convention similar to IETF draft: draft-AUTHOR-SUMMARY.
- BIP editors review drafts/* periodically for minimum standards, as per existing process.
- BIP editor assigns a number, moves into main directory, updates index.
- If a draft does not move after 6 months, it is deleted.
This enables a parallel process, where authors can upload to drafts/ without having to wait for anyone.
-
- luke-jr added the label New BIP on Dec 19, 2015
- luke-jr added the label Needs number assignment on Dec 19, 2015
- luke-jr assigned luke-jr on Jan 8, 2016
- luke-jr renamed this:
BIP-draft: BIP 102 variant w/ small steps
BIP 108: Block size increase to 2MB + small steps (BIP 102 variant w/ small steps)
on Jan 8, 2016 - luke-jr removed the label Needs number assignment on Jan 8, 2016
-
luke-jr commented at 5:51 PM on January 8, 2016: member
Needs Copyright section.
- luke-jr unassigned luke-jr on Jan 8, 2016
- luke-jr assigned jgarzik on Jan 8, 2016
- luke-jr cross-referenced this on Feb 3, 2016 from issue BIP101 support? by ghost
-
jgarzik commented at 8:45 AM on July 13, 2016: contributor
Closing request. No near term horizon for this proposal.
- jgarzik closed this on Jul 13, 2016
-
luke-jr commented at 3:40 AM on July 14, 2016: member
It's not clear if I should de-allocate BIP 108 for reuse, or leave it assigned...
-
dabura667 commented at 3:45 AM on July 14, 2016: none
BIPs should not be reused for clarity purposes imo.
-
afk11 commented at 8:51 PM on July 14, 2016: contributor
It should probably remain in the repo. It's status is only draft, so was never fully 'accepted'.
-
- luke-jr reopened this on Jul 15, 2016
-
gmaxwell commented at 8:50 AM on July 15, 2016: contributor
meh. just turn it into an empty document with the header and withdrawn in order to kill the number. You're making things too complex. :)
- luke-jr closed this on Jul 15, 2016
