1 2016-10-15 01:55:47 <ageis> can I talk to someone who's familiar with the Gitian deterministic build system?
 2 2016-10-15 05:05:01 <btcdrak> ageis: ask your question first.
 3 2016-10-15 06:11:55 <ageis> btcdrak: nvm, i'm good
 4 2016-10-15 13:44:36 <kanzure> luke-jr: i would prefer continuing to edit bip1 instead of deprecating bip1
 5 2016-10-15 13:44:49 <kanzure> (re: bip2)
 6 2016-10-15 13:45:32 <luke-jr> I wouldn't.
 7 2016-10-15 13:45:47 <kanzure> or, what's your strongest argument for not editing bip1
 8 2016-10-15 13:46:06 <luke-jr> it's not how the BIP process works?
 9 2016-10-15 13:46:34 <kanzure> have you read bip1?
10 2016-10-15 13:47:39 <kanzure> if you really want non-editing of bip1, it should probably be specified in bip1 :P
11 2016-10-15 13:48:18 <kanzure> also we should probably s/Bitcoin Improvement Process/Bitcoin Improvement Proposals/
12 2016-10-15 14:45:10 <kanzure> luke-jr: actually, what does "replacement" mean in https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-September/013165.html
13 2016-10-15 14:46:10 <luke-jr> kanzure: BIP 1 becomes Replaced when BIP 2 becomes Active
14 2016-10-15 14:46:54 <kanzure> ok you mean merely status update
15 2016-10-15 14:46:57 <kanzure> on the status line thing
16 2016-10-15 14:47:28 <kanzure> so you do not propose editing bip1 to prominently link to bip2 ?
17 2016-10-15 14:54:23 <kanzure> (i'm trying to convince myself about bip2)
18 2016-10-15 15:09:29 <luke-jr> kanzure: bip-0001.mediawiki could be edited to "unofficially" have its status plastered all over it in big letters pointing at bip 2
19 2016-10-15 15:09:54 <luke-jr> ie, I see it as out-of-band rather than a modification of the BIP content itself
20 2016-10-15 15:10:15 <kanzure> what is the value to you of preserving the original bip1 content?
21 2016-10-15 15:10:41 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: wikis do have history btw
22 2016-10-15 15:11:09 <Diablo-D3> btw, how are bips done? by rfc-style shit?
23 2016-10-15 15:11:15 <Diablo-D3> because rfcs dont go back and modify old ones
24 2016-10-15 15:11:16 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: see BIP 2
25 2016-10-15 15:11:40 <Diablo-D3> they purposely say in the opening paragraph "this rfc replaces rfc old one"
26 2016-10-15 15:11:52 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: that's the point
27 2016-10-15 15:12:04 <luke-jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
28 2016-10-15 15:12:22 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: also, its a bip about making bips?
29 2016-10-15 15:12:31 <Diablo-D3> neat
30 2016-10-15 15:12:33 <Diablo-D3> afk for real
31 2016-10-15 15:12:47 <luke-jr> yes
32 2016-10-15 15:47:58 <kanzure> arguably you should say "see bip1" not "see bip2" :P
33 2016-10-15 18:15:55 <TZander> luke-jr: I think he has a point; should BIP2 get accepted you want an *effective* description of writing a BIP. Meaning that if you don't change BIP1, you shouldn't point to it.
34 2016-10-15 18:48:09 <kanzure> all i meant was a humorous remark that in the irc chat  instead of telling Diablo-D3 to see bip2.. etc.. because bip1 is not inactive. and Diablo-D3 was asking about bip stuff.
35 2016-10-15 19:05:52 <luke-jr> kanzure: but BIP 1 doesn't give details for anything
36 2016-10-15 19:19:09 <kanzure> hm?
37 2016-10-15 20:14:33 <luke-jr> kanzure: a lot of BIP 2 is simply defining things BIP 1 left completely vague