📅 Original date posted:2021-07-09 📝 Original message: On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 02:20:51PM -0400, Antoine Riard wrote: > More personally, I feel it would be better if such a new specification > process doesn't completely share the same communication infrastructure as > the BOLTs, like [avoiding] having them in the same repository. In addition to Antoine's perception-based concern, I think an additional problem with keeping both BOLTs and BLIPs in the same repository is that there's no easy way for contributors to subscribe to only a subset of issues and PRs. E.g., if Alice is only interested in BOLTs and she clicks the GitHub Watch Repository button, she'll receive notifications for issues and PRs about BLIPs that she's not interested in; vice-versa for Bob who's only interested in BLIPs. If you still think it's desirable to keep BOLTs and BLIPs in the same source tree, you could maybe consider the monotree approach that originated with the Linux kernel project (AFAIK) and which the Bitcoin Core project began experimenting with about a year ago[1] (to moderate success AFAICT). -Dave [1] bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/06/24/#bitcoin-core-19071 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: <lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210709/ed66f453/attachment.sig>