š
Original date posted:2015-09-04
š Original message:On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:18:08PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for
> storing and presenting BIPs.
>
> I'm thinking of suggesting that the number request process be changed
> to opening a pull req with BIP text with no number (e.g. just using
> the authors name and an index as the number) as the mechenism to
> request number assignment.
>
> Is there any reason that anyone would find this objectionable?
>
> (Please do not respond to this message with anything but a strictly
> directed answer to that question, start a new thread for a different
> subject. Thanks!)
ACK
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000010f9e95aff6454fedb9d0a4b92a4108e9449c507936f9f18
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150904/fdf04575/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 17:39:29
in reply to nevent1qā¦d6rp
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 17:39:29Event JSON
{
"id": "68f47dcae99c5064660fff48105bf9a611cc9cdbbac66a8df45fa3683e8a6c40",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686159569,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ea8805956a408611038cfb546cd825ed67687e725ae27aee85fb4c16b69a4b16",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"322c070a189260fbd7018ef9e8a8e20c20761f9c0335d81662771a52069207c0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-09-04\nš Original message:On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:18:08PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for\n\u003e storing and presenting BIPs.\n\u003e \n\u003e I'm thinking of suggesting that the number request process be changed\n\u003e to opening a pull req with BIP text with no number (e.g. just using\n\u003e the authors name and an index as the number) as the mechenism to\n\u003e request number assignment.\n\u003e \n\u003e Is there any reason that anyone would find this objectionable?\n\u003e \n\u003e (Please do not respond to this message with anything but a strictly\n\u003e directed answer to that question, start a new thread for a different\n\u003e subject. Thanks!)\n\nACK\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000010f9e95aff6454fedb9d0a4b92a4108e9449c507936f9f18\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150904/fdf04575/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "7c16d18bac5036a3da911ce977232f8561a6b6fd401d940acf57e514582cb20fa71fa95feb4470fb5c4c6e237c652b2ff84551da57a7173a6120f3d9529e36c2"
}