bip10: Record Withdrawal in Changelog#2171
Conversation
murchandamus
added
the
Metadata Update
murchandamus
force-pushed
the
bip10-record-withdrawal
branch
from
414877c to
7571cd4
Compare
|
|
||
| == Changelog == | ||
|
|
||
| * 2014-11-26: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
2014-12-09 was the date of merge, if that is preferable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the Changelog entry had been proposed along with the pull request, it would have had the date of when the PR was opened and signed-off by the BIP owner. I don’t think it makes sense for BIP Editors to update a Changelog date before merging a PR to the date of when they get around to merging it — that’d just be busywork. So, the date here feels natural to me as is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree, makes sense. I had understood from other pulls that you were preferring the date of merge, like here: #2167 (comment).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It’s possible that I have not been consistent across my updates in this regard. In that specific case the author had announced a planned date for the merge in advance, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
True. In some cases, like for activation of a process BIP, or if there is a large difference between dates of opening and merging, it may also make sense to focus on merge date?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, in cases where they diverge greatly, merge date seems more reasonable.
|
|
||
| * 2014-11-26: | ||
| ** Withdrawn after Armory stopped using BIP10 and no other projects were known to implement support (see [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/125 bips#125]). | ||
| * 2011-10-28: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, the only commit or pull I found was 4261991 on this date
2 participants
BIP10 was withdrawn per #125 after Armory stopped using it and no other projects were known to implement support.