1 2016-08-21 00:00:04	0|luke-jr|yeah, kinda.
 2 2016-08-21 00:01:28	0|luke-jr|(no objections if anyone wants to rename these statuses in a Process BIP, but that's how it is now)
 3 2016-08-21 00:01:47	0|BlueMatt|yeayea, not suggesting we bother fixing, just pointing it out as strange
 4 2016-08-21 00:03:54	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: yea, i mean bip 111 looks complete and finalized to me
 5 2016-08-21 00:04:12	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: ok, I'll bump its Status then, thanks
 6 2016-08-21 01:02:23	0|phantomcircuit|BlueMatt: too bad
 7 2016-08-21 01:09:48	0|BlueMatt|phantomcircuit: huh?
 8 2016-08-21 02:16:20	0|phantomcircuit|BlueMatt: spv clients that dont implement bip 111
 9 2016-08-21 02:16:22	0|phantomcircuit|too bad
10 2016-08-21 02:35:07	0|luke-jr|phantomcircuit: BIP status doesn't change anything. It just documents the reality.
11 2016-08-21 04:48:46	0|phantomcircuit|luke-jr: yes i know i was there when amir wrote bip 1
12 2016-08-21 04:48:47	0|phantomcircuit|:P
13 2016-08-21 04:49:07	0|luke-jr|phantomcircuit: no wonder it had so many errors! :P jk
14 2016-08-21 04:49:34	0|phantomcircuit|im kind of surprised nobody has moved to modify it yet
15 2016-08-21 04:58:10	0|luke-jr|they have
16 2016-08-21 04:58:25	0|luke-jr|there's merged PRs modifying BIP 1, and open ones
17 2016-08-21 05:27:16	0|phantomcircuit|oh there's two
18 2016-08-21 07:14:27	0|btcdrak|The issue with BIPs is there are clearly two different tracks. but the workflow only covers on. there are consensus BIPs which have a clear objective state that doesnt really include accepted. Then there are non consensus BIPs which get adopted by a large chunk of the ecosystem, like BIP32 & BIP44
19 2016-08-21 07:15:40	0|btcdrak|also in some ways BIPs can be finalised by their authors, as in, they are not taking any more changes, so it is final, but that also doesnt reflect usage.
20 2016-08-21 07:15:49	0|btcdrak|we probably need to state flows in any case.
21 2016-08-21 07:35:31	0|sipa|i think consensus change BIPs should have completely separate states
22 2016-08-21 07:36:13	0|btcdrak|ack
23 2016-08-21 07:36:35	0|btcdrak|i think I wrote about this some months ago to the ML
24 2016-08-21 11:07:36	0|Valer|hi all
25 2016-08-21 11:08:42	0|Valer|Who is Bitcoin Core Developer?
26 2016-08-21 18:10:58	0|achow101|what's blocking 0.13.0 final?
27 2016-08-21 18:25:32	0|btcdrak|achow101: Nothing. At the last meeting we wanted to verify #8518 but it isnt a blocker now. I assume the tag will happen in the next couple of days.
28 2016-08-21 19:22:54	0|GitHub71|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8557: [contrib] verifybinaries: Adjust parsing to new rc path (06master...06Mf1608-verifyBins) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8557