Fix Reference to Non-Existent BIPs #412

pull super3 wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from super3:patch-1 changing 1 files +1 −1

super3 commented at 3:45 PM on June 24, 2016: none

This document was derived from PEP-0001. This line makes reference to BIPs 8 and 7, which don't exist. These are leftover refrences to Python PEPs which establish guidelines for code styles.

Fix Reference to Non-Existent BIPs

Reference to Python PEPs accidentally left in.

a83a3e5258

laanwj commented at 2:18 PM on June 28, 2016: member

Thanks for actually reading BIP 1 :) As I've complained before, it's probably the least read 'important' document in bitcoin history.

Shameful ACK

TBH I think you can remove "code style" completely there, BIPs hardly contain code, and if they do (as BIP66 does) there's no code style guideline.

Removed Code Style

@laanwj "BIPs hardly contain code, and if they do (as BIP66 does) there's no code style guideline"

291e670899

MarcoFalke commented at 2:36 PM on June 28, 2016: member

ACK 291e670
super3 commented at 3:06 PM on June 28, 2016: none

@laanwj Good point. Updated the pull request to reflect that.

I maintain that Bitcoin documentation is a bit disjointed. All my pulls into core have been around trying to make stuff more readable. If more people need to read it, needs to be more visible.
luke-jr commented at 4:44 PM on June 28, 2016: member

@genjix
luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Jun 28, 2016
super3 commented at 7:58 PM on August 21, 2016: none

@luke-jr @genjix Anything missing from my end, or are we just waiting for more ACKs?
luke-jr commented at 10:13 PM on September 2, 2016: member

@super3 Just waiting for @genjix since he is the sole Author at this point... :/
jonathancross commented at 1:40 AM on October 1, 2016: contributor

Unfortunately @genjix has been MIA for more than a year. Seems we might want to have a backup plan for authors that are not responsive / have abandoned their BIP?

Same applies to #453
luke-jr commented at 4:21 AM on October 1, 2016: member

BIP 1 allows me to reassign BIPs if authors go missing. However, I consider BIP 1 set in stone, and instead would prefer if people make the effort to review BIP 2 as a replacement, which I will be proposing to the mailing list shortly, if there are no further review comments.
super3 cross-referenced this on Oct 1, 2016 from issue BIP1: Update copyright requirements by MarcoFalke
super3 commented at 5:39 PM on October 1, 2016: none

@luke-jr @genjix Is clearly MIA, so #412 and #453 are in limbo. So to be clear you don't plan on reassigning BIP 1 to another author, but instead plan on trying to get BIP 2 accepted? If so #412 and #453 can probably be closed if/when BIP 2 is accepted.

Is there a current discussion area for BIP 2? I'd like to make some comments.
MarcoFalke commented at 6:29 PM on October 1, 2016: member

Is there a current discussion area for BIP 2? I'd like to make some comments.

Right now you could send your comment to https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-September/013165.html
luke-jr commented at 4:36 AM on December 15, 2016: member

BIP 1 has been Replaced by BIP 2.
luke-jr closed this on Dec 15, 2016

Contributors

Labels

Proposed BIP modification

Linked (view graph)