đ
Original date posted:2016-03-21
đ Original message:
> I think the layout is a bit too nested (which makes sense coming from
> the Java implementor, I guess? :) and I think it'd be good to have a
> simple way to decide how to move ideas into/through the repo, without
> making it a place where there's any point trying to politicise proposals.
> (It's kind of telling that something's wrong when even matsjj hasn't
> been able to get his pull requests accepted :)
Hehe I was waiting for you guys to merge those, as I donât consider this âmy repositoryâ but rather the specification of the protocol eventually.
I do agree that the format isnât perfect yet. I still like these nested packages, because it separates the different parts of the application (and I donât see why plain numbers are any better than an actual structure? ;) ).
When I started the repository, my goal was to
(1) bring together all the different implementations
(2) agree on a common denominator.
We have to finish (1) first before we actually can concentrate on (2) though.
I suppose it makes sense to have the different parts of the application and have the different implementations side-by-side within that package. Then we can decide how we compose the âfinalâ specifications of that part.
While we still work on the very 1.0 specifications, isnât it favourable to stick to named proposals, instead of throwing around with numbers? (even though I like the âBOLTâ namesâŚ)
Cheers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20160321/8ef66b64/attachment.sig>;
Mats Jerratsch [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hzâŚq5x8w
2023-06-09 12:46:02
in reply to nevent1qâŚcvf6
Author Public Key
npub1hz386xq4qszumlx5fsxa3kuxpaf8qvfrqqjg8zdl2l892hrcg55q6q5x8wPublished at
2023-06-09 12:46:02Event JSON
{
"id": "63331c6d647d2c5f594f51e7cdb48d4107f0cb90986f9cc9d25e5ee91896b68f",
"pubkey": "b8a27d18150405cdfcd44c0dd8db860f5270312300248389bf57ce555c784528",
"created_at": 1686314762,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"512c06ae0143512f49e5abf274ed72851bc5aa8be8c43678fcbc207d10566de1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"dc7d97a5be8623657997146f1b2ddec31fc3b995fb49db2604507e0cd5cb4d13",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ccb4cc87c455b74febaee5929cfd0726421b2eea64ad2b16440b68e8c7433211"
]
],
"content": "đ
Original date posted:2016-03-21\nđ Original message:\n\u003e I think the layout is a bit too nested (which makes sense coming from\n\u003e the Java implementor, I guess? :) and I think it'd be good to have a\n\u003e simple way to decide how to move ideas into/through the repo, without\n\u003e making it a place where there's any point trying to politicise proposals.\n\u003e (It's kind of telling that something's wrong when even matsjj hasn't\n\u003e been able to get his pull requests accepted :)\n\nHehe I was waiting for you guys to merge those, as I donât consider this âmy repositoryâ but rather the specification of the protocol eventually.\nI do agree that the format isnât perfect yet. I still like these nested packages, because it separates the different parts of the application (and I donât see why plain numbers are any better than an actual structure? ;) ).\nWhen I started the repository, my goal was to\n(1) bring together all the different implementations\n(2) agree on a common denominator.\n\nWe have to finish (1) first before we actually can concentrate on (2) though.\n\nI suppose it makes sense to have the different parts of the application and have the different implementations side-by-side within that package. Then we can decide how we compose the âfinalâ specifications of that part.\n\nWhile we still work on the very 1.0 specifications, isnât it favourable to stick to named proposals, instead of throwing around with numbers? (even though I like the âBOLTâ namesâŚ)\n\nCheers\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20160321/8ef66b64/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "a2b340a35b4987e46397a9247366b9be193a33e730e209162d6e225407d1899d1a76b6e810f77e423de5422478e013ce717c6d570f8a39697e92810b871108a2"
}