📅 Original date posted:2023-04-20
🗒️ Summary of this message: A critic suggests that the W3C is an example of a slow train wreck, and we should avoid their decisions. Communication challenges exist in Bitcoin Core.
📝 Original message:i think the w3c is a very good example of a slow train wreck, and we should
do everything possible to avoid the decisions they made
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 7:09 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Personnally I will never criticize the maintainers, but my comment was
> about the global process, I thought that for something important like
> bitcoin there were many devs/maintainers, and as you point out, a PR
> must be done by certified people
>
> I don't get very well why every company involved in bitcoin do not put
> at least one person in this process (a bit like W3C specs), with
> different time zone so every time you wake up you don't have to look
> at/handle hundreds of requests/comments
>
> And we can read in the press that bitcoin maintenance is supposed to
> cost 200M per year, probably false then, but this is worrying to see
> that devs/maintainers are stepping down one after the other
>
>
> Le 19/04/2023 à 23:33, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> > Responses in-line.
> > Note that the opinions expressed in this email are my own and are not
> > representative of what other maintainers think or believe.
> >
> > On 04/18/2023 08:40 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > >
> > > Communication has been a challenge on Bitcoin Core for what I can
> > tell the entire history of the project. Maintainers merge a pull request
> > and provide no commentary on why they’ve merged it.
> >
> > What commentary does there need to be?
> > It's self evident that the maintainer believes the code is ready to be
> > merged, and has observed enough ACKs from contributors that they are
> > comfortable to do so.
> > You're welcome to ask for clarification, but frankly, I don't think
> > having any commentary on merges is going to be helpful or more elaborate
> > in any way.
> > Requiring maintainers to have to write explanations for every single
> > merge is simply going to increase the burden on them and increase the
> > rate of burnout and resignations.
> > We've had too many maintainers step down already.
> > It'll end up being a bunch of boilerplate comments that don't say
> > anything meaningful.
> >
> > There are certainly situations where PRs are merged very quickly or with
> > otherwise little apparent review.
> > But, as I said, if you ask a maintainer why it was merged, the answer
> > will be "I thought it was ready and had enough review".
> > There may be other reasons that made the maintainer think it was ready
> > sooner, such as the PR fixes a critical bug or security vulnerability,
> > but these reasons aren't going to be stated publicly.
> >
> > > Maintainers leave a pull request with many ACKs and few (if any)
> > NACKs for months and provide no commentary on why they haven't merged it.
> >
> > There are currently 320 open PRs and 366 open issues.
> > I wake up every morning to 150+ email notifications containing
> > everything that went on overnight, and throughout the day, I typically
> > get hundreds more.
> > It's impossible to keep up with everything that goes on throughout the
> repo.
> > ACKs come in sporadically, PRs are updated, reviews are posted, etc.
> > Often times PRs are not merged simply because the maintainers were not
> > aware that a PR was ready to be merged.
> > Things can simply fall through the cracks.
> >
> > Of course there are other reasons why something might not be merged, and
> > these generally fall into the camp of "I don't think it has had enough
> > review".
> > It's the maintainer's judgement call to make as to whether something has
> > been sufficiently reviewed, and part of the judgement call is to
> > consider the quality and competence of the reviewers.
> > If a PR had 100 ACKs but all from random people who have never
> > contributed to the project in any capacity, then it's not going to be
> > merged because those reviewers would be considered low quality.
> > It's not just about the numbers, but also about whether the reviewers
> > are people the maintainers think are familiar enough with an area and
> > have had a history of thoroughly reviewing PRs.
> > For example, if a reviewer who primarily works on the mempool reviewed a
> > PR in the wallet, I would consider their review and ACK with less weight
> > because they are unlikely to be familiar with the intricacies of the
> wallet.
> > Obviously that changes over time as they make more reviews.
> > For another example, if I see an ACK from a reviewer who posts reviews
> > that primarily contain nits on code style and other trivialities, I
> > would consider that ACK with less weight.
> >
> > Furthermore, the maintainers are not necessarily the ones who block a
> merge.
> > Part of evaluating if something is ready to be merged is to read the
> > comments on a PR.
> > Other frequent contributors may have commented or asked questions that
> > haven't been resolved yet.
> > PRs will often not be merged (even if they have ACKs) until a maintainer
> > deems that those comments and questions have been sufficiently resolved,
> > typically with the commenter stating in some way that their concerns
> > were addressed.
> > In these situations, no commentary from maintainers is given nor
> > necessary as it should be self evident (by reading the comments) that
> > something is controversial.
> > These kinds of comments are not explicit NACKs (so someone who is only
> > counting (N)ACKs won't see them), but are blocking nonetheless.
> >
> > Lastly, personally I like to review every PR before I merge it.
> > This often means that a PR that might otherwise be ready to be merged
> > wouldn't be merged by myself as I may not be familiar with that part of
> > the codebase.
> > It may also mean that I would require more or specific additional people
> > to review a PR before I merge it as I would weight my own review less
> > heavily.
> > With several long time maintainers stepping away, this may be a factor
> > in PRs taking longer to get merged as the remaining maintainers may be
> > less familiar with the parts of the codebase that were previously
> > maintained by someone else.
> >
> > > but a casual observer would have only seen Concept ACKs and ACKs with
> > 3 stray NACKs. Many of these casual observers inflated the numbers on
> > the utxos.org site [4] signalling support for a soft fork activation
> > attempt.
> >
> > Anyone who thinks that maintainers only look at the numbers of (N)ACKs
> > is delusional.
> > As I explained above, there is a whole lot more nuance to determining
> > even just the status of the opinions on a PR, nevermind the code itself.
> >
> > In this specific example of a soft fork, there is also consideration of
> > the opinions outside of the repo itself, such as on this mailing list
> > and elsewhere that people discuss soft forks.
> >
> > On 04/19/2023 11:17 AM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > While some simple changes can allow bitcoin to surpass ethereum, as
> > usual, like "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size"
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043
> > >
> > > How long it will take remains mysterious
> >
> > No one (maintainers or contributors) is obligated to implement anything.
> > A feature request not being implemented is because the people who do
> > open PRs are either not interested in implementing the feature, or are
> > working on other things that they believe to be higher priority.
> > If there is a feature that you want, then you will often need to either
> > to it yourself, or pay someone to do it for you.
> >
> > Additionally, a feature may seem like a good idea to you, but there are
> > often interactions with other things that may end up resulting in it
> > being rejected or need significant revision, especially for something
> > which affects transaction relay.
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew Chow
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> --
> Sophia-Antipolis, France
> CV: https://www.peersm.com/CVAV.pdf
> LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/aymeric-vitte-05855b26
> GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
> A Universal Coin Swap system based on Bitcoin:
> https://gist.github.com/Ayms/029125db2583e1cf9c3209769eb2cdd7
> A bitcoin NFT system:
> https://gist.github.com/Ayms/01dbfebf219965054b4a3beed1bfeba7
> Move your coins by yourself (browser version): https://peersm.com/wallet
> Bitcoin transactions made simple:
> https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transactions
>
> torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
> node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
> Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist:
> http://torrent-live.peersm.com
> Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230420/0f7fca51/attachment.html>;
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2…5taj0
2023-06-07 23:20:44
in reply to nevent1q…reqc
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0Published at
2023-06-07 23:20:44Event JSON
{
"id": "e437bef3998ae71d13fcc0c9f46047142b12dd5cd14852a617c61dc38bad8ea4",
"pubkey": "22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa",
"created_at": 1686180044,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5dceb99394b9e8fe409f15f1d200290ea749436ed7f29c12cb94147296ad7609",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b64e52f8612dab8d71546c7fd0b6fe1b7e5f027d5ba2426e500a32c48cc2803f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a2711d6616d348a3542bb2a791a9e51fcbc7b7d1d20652e5abe16d3e179321df"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-04-20\n🗒️ Summary of this message: A critic suggests that the W3C is an example of a slow train wreck, and we should avoid their decisions. Communication challenges exist in Bitcoin Core.\n📝 Original message:i think the w3c is a very good example of a slow train wreck, and we should\ndo everything possible to avoid the decisions they made\n\nOn Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 7:09 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Personnally I will never criticize the maintainers, but my comment was\n\u003e about the global process, I thought that for something important like\n\u003e bitcoin there were many devs/maintainers, and as you point out, a PR\n\u003e must be done by certified people\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't get very well why every company involved in bitcoin do not put\n\u003e at least one person in this process (a bit like W3C specs), with\n\u003e different time zone so every time you wake up you don't have to look\n\u003e at/handle hundreds of requests/comments\n\u003e\n\u003e And we can read in the press that bitcoin maintenance is supposed to\n\u003e cost 200M per year, probably false then, but this is worrying to see\n\u003e that devs/maintainers are stepping down one after the other\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Le 19/04/2023 à 23:33, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev a écrit :\n\u003e \u003e Responses in-line.\n\u003e \u003e Note that the opinions expressed in this email are my own and are not\n\u003e \u003e representative of what other maintainers think or believe.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On 04/18/2023 08:40 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Communication has been a challenge on Bitcoin Core for what I can\n\u003e \u003e tell the entire history of the project. Maintainers merge a pull request\n\u003e \u003e and provide no commentary on why they’ve merged it.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e What commentary does there need to be?\n\u003e \u003e It's self evident that the maintainer believes the code is ready to be\n\u003e \u003e merged, and has observed enough ACKs from contributors that they are\n\u003e \u003e comfortable to do so.\n\u003e \u003e You're welcome to ask for clarification, but frankly, I don't think\n\u003e \u003e having any commentary on merges is going to be helpful or more elaborate\n\u003e \u003e in any way.\n\u003e \u003e Requiring maintainers to have to write explanations for every single\n\u003e \u003e merge is simply going to increase the burden on them and increase the\n\u003e \u003e rate of burnout and resignations.\n\u003e \u003e We've had too many maintainers step down already.\n\u003e \u003e It'll end up being a bunch of boilerplate comments that don't say\n\u003e \u003e anything meaningful.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e There are certainly situations where PRs are merged very quickly or with\n\u003e \u003e otherwise little apparent review.\n\u003e \u003e But, as I said, if you ask a maintainer why it was merged, the answer\n\u003e \u003e will be \"I thought it was ready and had enough review\".\n\u003e \u003e There may be other reasons that made the maintainer think it was ready\n\u003e \u003e sooner, such as the PR fixes a critical bug or security vulnerability,\n\u003e \u003e but these reasons aren't going to be stated publicly.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Maintainers leave a pull request with many ACKs and few (if any)\n\u003e \u003e NACKs for months and provide no commentary on why they haven't merged it.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e There are currently 320 open PRs and 366 open issues.\n\u003e \u003e I wake up every morning to 150+ email notifications containing\n\u003e \u003e everything that went on overnight, and throughout the day, I typically\n\u003e \u003e get hundreds more.\n\u003e \u003e It's impossible to keep up with everything that goes on throughout the\n\u003e repo.\n\u003e \u003e ACKs come in sporadically, PRs are updated, reviews are posted, etc.\n\u003e \u003e Often times PRs are not merged simply because the maintainers were not\n\u003e \u003e aware that a PR was ready to be merged.\n\u003e \u003e Things can simply fall through the cracks.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Of course there are other reasons why something might not be merged, and\n\u003e \u003e these generally fall into the camp of \"I don't think it has had enough\n\u003e \u003e review\".\n\u003e \u003e It's the maintainer's judgement call to make as to whether something has\n\u003e \u003e been sufficiently reviewed, and part of the judgement call is to\n\u003e \u003e consider the quality and competence of the reviewers.\n\u003e \u003e If a PR had 100 ACKs but all from random people who have never\n\u003e \u003e contributed to the project in any capacity, then it's not going to be\n\u003e \u003e merged because those reviewers would be considered low quality.\n\u003e \u003e It's not just about the numbers, but also about whether the reviewers\n\u003e \u003e are people the maintainers think are familiar enough with an area and\n\u003e \u003e have had a history of thoroughly reviewing PRs.\n\u003e \u003e For example, if a reviewer who primarily works on the mempool reviewed a\n\u003e \u003e PR in the wallet, I would consider their review and ACK with less weight\n\u003e \u003e because they are unlikely to be familiar with the intricacies of the\n\u003e wallet.\n\u003e \u003e Obviously that changes over time as they make more reviews.\n\u003e \u003e For another example, if I see an ACK from a reviewer who posts reviews\n\u003e \u003e that primarily contain nits on code style and other trivialities, I\n\u003e \u003e would consider that ACK with less weight.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Furthermore, the maintainers are not necessarily the ones who block a\n\u003e merge.\n\u003e \u003e Part of evaluating if something is ready to be merged is to read the\n\u003e \u003e comments on a PR.\n\u003e \u003e Other frequent contributors may have commented or asked questions that\n\u003e \u003e haven't been resolved yet.\n\u003e \u003e PRs will often not be merged (even if they have ACKs) until a maintainer\n\u003e \u003e deems that those comments and questions have been sufficiently resolved,\n\u003e \u003e typically with the commenter stating in some way that their concerns\n\u003e \u003e were addressed.\n\u003e \u003e In these situations, no commentary from maintainers is given nor\n\u003e \u003e necessary as it should be self evident (by reading the comments) that\n\u003e \u003e something is controversial.\n\u003e \u003e These kinds of comments are not explicit NACKs (so someone who is only\n\u003e \u003e counting (N)ACKs won't see them), but are blocking nonetheless.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Lastly, personally I like to review every PR before I merge it.\n\u003e \u003e This often means that a PR that might otherwise be ready to be merged\n\u003e \u003e wouldn't be merged by myself as I may not be familiar with that part of\n\u003e \u003e the codebase.\n\u003e \u003e It may also mean that I would require more or specific additional people\n\u003e \u003e to review a PR before I merge it as I would weight my own review less\n\u003e \u003e heavily.\n\u003e \u003e With several long time maintainers stepping away, this may be a factor\n\u003e \u003e in PRs taking longer to get merged as the remaining maintainers may be\n\u003e \u003e less familiar with the parts of the codebase that were previously\n\u003e \u003e maintained by someone else.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e but a casual observer would have only seen Concept ACKs and ACKs with\n\u003e \u003e 3 stray NACKs. Many of these casual observers inflated the numbers on\n\u003e \u003e the utxos.org site [4] signalling support for a soft fork activation\n\u003e \u003e attempt.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Anyone who thinks that maintainers only look at the numbers of (N)ACKs\n\u003e \u003e is delusional.\n\u003e \u003e As I explained above, there is a whole lot more nuance to determining\n\u003e \u003e even just the status of the opinions on a PR, nevermind the code itself.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e In this specific example of a soft fork, there is also consideration of\n\u003e \u003e the opinions outside of the repo itself, such as on this mailing list\n\u003e \u003e and elsewhere that people discuss soft forks.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On 04/19/2023 11:17 AM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e While some simple changes can allow bitcoin to surpass ethereum, as\n\u003e \u003e usual, like \"Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size\"\n\u003e \u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e How long it will take remains mysterious\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e No one (maintainers or contributors) is obligated to implement anything.\n\u003e \u003e A feature request not being implemented is because the people who do\n\u003e \u003e open PRs are either not interested in implementing the feature, or are\n\u003e \u003e working on other things that they believe to be higher priority.\n\u003e \u003e If there is a feature that you want, then you will often need to either\n\u003e \u003e to it yourself, or pay someone to do it for you.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Additionally, a feature may seem like a good idea to you, but there are\n\u003e \u003e often interactions with other things that may end up resulting in it\n\u003e \u003e being rejected or need significant revision, especially for something\n\u003e \u003e which affects transaction relay.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Andrew Chow\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Sophia-Antipolis, France\n\u003e CV: https://www.peersm.com/CVAV.pdf\n\u003e LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/aymeric-vitte-05855b26\n\u003e GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms\n\u003e A Universal Coin Swap system based on Bitcoin:\n\u003e https://gist.github.com/Ayms/029125db2583e1cf9c3209769eb2cdd7\n\u003e A bitcoin NFT system:\n\u003e https://gist.github.com/Ayms/01dbfebf219965054b4a3beed1bfeba7\n\u003e Move your coins by yourself (browser version): https://peersm.com/wallet\n\u003e Bitcoin transactions made simple:\n\u003e https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transactions\n\u003e\n\u003e torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live\n\u003e node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor\n\u003e Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist:\n\u003e http://torrent-live.peersm.com\n\u003e Peersm : http://www.peersm.com\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230420/0f7fca51/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c809cc6d342b691da8db78846f1c87a6094f9254ca22cef39ac9222f2153e26f158762cca4b7c21150d1c628479139bd695a8e9065a9c688e4eec4ebc910a2cf"
}