📅 Original date posted:2012-07-09
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you had authored this as a pull request rather than making the
> change unilaterally I would have recommended leaving it so the
> reference client was always first. I also would have suggested that it
> use JS randomization instead of jekyll in order to get more even
> coverage, though I think thats a more minor point.
Agreed, and this would be why I support revert -- pull requests are
for anything non-trivial. This practice of pull requests clearly
should be followed in the case of controversial changes.
> Some people were concerned when this page was created that it would
> just be a source of useless disputes. I think its becoming clear that
> this is the case. I think the cost of dealing with this page is
> starting to exceed the benefit it provides and we should probably
> consider removing it.
Agreed.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 10:21:59
in reply to nevent1q…0cal
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 10:21:59Event JSON
{
"id": "f2912fc747ecdf129d961fa9882d2bc1dede7b141ba078a629d0db0539b0f033",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686133319,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cc6bba8fda1c3a64a0e3f616ccacf637aeea7329d9f2665d6c8e9d6a789d86de",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0b31ec3a14c74da87868ac7f4137f1a7eea5bc089870c84df2a86df85833e985",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-07-09\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e If you had authored this as a pull request rather than making the\n\u003e change unilaterally I would have recommended leaving it so the\n\u003e reference client was always first. I also would have suggested that it\n\u003e use JS randomization instead of jekyll in order to get more even\n\u003e coverage, though I think thats a more minor point.\n\nAgreed, and this would be why I support revert -- pull requests are\nfor anything non-trivial. This practice of pull requests clearly\nshould be followed in the case of controversial changes.\n\n\u003e Some people were concerned when this page was created that it would\n\u003e just be a source of useless disputes. I think its becoming clear that\n\u003e this is the case. I think the cost of dealing with this page is\n\u003e starting to exceed the benefit it provides and we should probably\n\u003e consider removing it.\n\nAgreed.\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nexMULTI, Inc.\njgarzik at exmulti.com",
"sig": "c2eb40e5a2f20895e2f181f04723c645b23d54b51e7053c3df32e56cdc99bc94e646de700741332caa13522f31ce9d55dd0c8a803a3473e0c2def6e2fd59a53b"
}