The developer mailing list was migrated to Google Groups in February 2024 as announced in https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/aewBuV6k-LI.
In this patch, I decided to add a link to the archives maintained by the Linux Foundation as linked in the old mailing list page.
A reasonable alternative would be link to the new archives linked in the migration announcement message. I’m not sure about the status of the archive migration, probably the old archives are more comprehensive to this date.
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.
See the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
The old mailing list address is also mentioned in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/23ba39470c3d155a65f0616f8848ada730658301/doc/dnsseed-policy.md?plain=1#L47
Would be a good idea to address that as well?
All other references to the old Linux Foundation mailing list in the code base link to specific threads in the archives and all links are active to this date.
65@@ -66,9 +66,10 @@ Discussion about codebase improvements happens in GitHub issues and pull
66 requests.
67
68 The developer
69-[mailing list](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev)
70+[mailing list](https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev)
71 should be used to discuss complicated or controversial consensus or P2P protocol changes before working on
72 a patch set.
73+Archives can be found in the [old mailing list](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/) maintained by the Linux Foundation.
For links to the full archive and for the signup feature that seems fine.
But for links to specific threads (6 in total) I suggest we keep the old URL. At least for a few more years. They are redirected indefinitely, and not changing those links gives flexibly to switch to different archive later with or without generating a complete set of redirects.
Also, looking at https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/ the layout is not very pretty. So even for the old archive I would prefer sticking to the linuxfoundation URL. But the text should clarify that this archive goes until December 2023.
(and I don’t think Google itself should be recommended as the canonical archive)
Also, looking at
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/the layout is not very pretty. So even for the old archive I would prefer sticking to the linuxfoundation URL. But the text should clarify that this archive goes until December 2023.(and I don’t think Google itself should be recommended as the canonical archive)
I wasn’t aware the Linux Foundation archive were not being updated anymore. It means that the new archive is the comprehensive source of truth in the present and probably is the best option. But I don’t like the idea of having Google as the main source as well.
Concept ACK, thanks for updating this!
In this patch, I decided to add a link to the archives maintained by the Linux Foundation as linked in the old mailing list page.
I’m not sure about this. I don’t think there is any expectation this archive will be maintained.
All other references to the old Linux Foundation mailing list in the code base link to specific threads in the archives and all links are active to this date.
I think it would be better to switch all links over to the new archive. AFAIK, the archive migration is complete and matches the old archive, so I don’t see any issues with switching all the links over. As a sanity check, we can spot check the URLs as part of review.
I’m not sure about the status of the archive migration, probably the old archives are more comprehensive to this date. […] AFAIK, the archive migration is complete and matches the old archive, so I don’t see any issues with switching all the links over.
The archive migration to https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev was completed, and it is a complete record at this time, including new messages to the new mailing list.
the layout is not very pretty
Well…. pull requests welcome. This is a public-inbox instance. See https://public-inbox.org/ for more information. Also, mirrors of this archive would also be very much welcome. Give it a spiffy url that people will remember, and then it won’t be a single point of failure. It’s just git, so git clone it.
All other references to the old Linux Foundation mailing list in the code base link to specific threads in the archives and all links are active to this date. […] I don’t think there is any expectation this archive will be maintained.
The old linuxfoundation archive and urls I am told will continue to host the old emails. It will not have any of the new emails of course.
They are redirected indefinitely.
I haven’t heard about this?
(and I don’t think Google itself should be recommended as the canonical archive)
Agree.
They are redirected indefinitely.
I haven’t heard about this?
I meant to say for the foreseeable future. Or did they announce a deadline for these?
Update: not redirect, but a static page.
@josibake Given the other comments, probably the consensus approach is
I agree with Sjors to keep the old specific links as they are, that’s why I opened them all before submitting the PR to ensure they are still active.
For the record, these are the mentions of the linux foundation links:
0❯ ripgrep linuxfoundation
1src/validation.cpp
2962: // this, see https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-November/016518.html
33960: // https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190225/a27d8837/attachment-0001.pdf).
44383: // https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-February/016697.html. Because CheckBlock() is
5
6src/crypto/muhash.h
788: * https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014337.html.
8
9doc/policy/mempool-limits.md
1042:post](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-November/016518.html).
11
12test/functional/test_framework/crypto/muhash.py
1321: See https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~mihir/papers/inchash.pdf and https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014337.html
14
15doc/dnsseed-policy.md
1647:[bitcoin-dev](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev).
17
18CONTRIBUTING.md
1969:[mailing list](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev)
@josibake Given the other comments, probably the consensus approach is
1. to update all mentions of the mailing list to the new link (CONTRIBUTING.md and dnsseed-policy.md), 2. CONTRIBUTING.md refers to the new archive since this file is the entry point for newcomers, 3. keep all other mentions of specific emails and threads as they are (as kanzure was told they will still be available in the long term).I agree with Sjors to keep the old specific links as they are, that’s why I opened them all before submitting the PR to ensure they are still active.
Sounds good to me! I have a slight preference for changing the old links to the new archive since the only thing we are certain of is that the new archive will be maintained going into the future by people closer to the project. But the approach you’ve laid out seems fine and we can always change the old links if/when they become a problem.
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/754d42d3530da0a795679fcea3f02c91e2a7b027
Excellent commit message 👍
For future reference, in case we decide to update the archive links cited in other places of the codebase, here is the mapping:
0src/validation.cpp
1
2original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-November/016518.html
3update: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/c3f68b73-84c6-7428-4bf6-b47802141392@mattcorallo.com/
4
5original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190225/a27d8837/attachment-0001.pdf
6update: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAFp6fsGtEm9p-ZQF_XqfqyQGzZK7BS2SNp2z680QBsJiFDraEA@mail.gmail.com/2-BitcoinMerkle.pdf
7
8original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-February/016697.html
9update: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAFp6fsGtEm9p-ZQF_XqfqyQGzZK7BS2SNp2z680QBsJiFDraEA@mail.gmail.com/
10
11—
12
13src/crypto/muhash.h
14
15original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014337.html
16update: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAPg+sBgruEiXya6oFy6VpmR1KPDebjeGDtZZU+facZx5=L_a5w@mail.gmail.com/
17
18—
19
20doc/policy/mempool-limits.md
21
22original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-November/016518.html
23update: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/c3f68b73-84c6-7428-4bf6-b47802141392@mattcorallo.com/
24
25—
26
27test/functional/test_framework/crypto/muhash.py
28
29original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014337.html
30update: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAPg+sBgruEiXya6oFy6VpmR1KPDebjeGDtZZU+facZx5=L_a5w@mail.gmail.com/
The developer mailing list was migrated to Google Groups in February 2024
as announced in https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/aewBuV6k-LI.
The archives maintained by the Linux Foundation stopped updating in December
2024. Thus, we point to the new archive maintained by gnusha.org.
The codebase refers to old discussions linked to the Linux Foundation archives.
Since all links are still active to this date, we keep them as they are.
See #29782.
ACK 754d42d
Excellent commit message 👍
Thanks, but there was a typo (database instead of codebase). Amended to correct it, sorry for that.
crACK 0ead466a0c72bef0a8622749b84e9c7c5c37144f
LGTM