代码拉取完成，页面将自动刷新
BMIP: 1 Title: BMIP Purpose and Guidelines Author: Lang Yu <[email protected]> Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bytom/bmips/wiki/Comments:BMIP-001 Status: Active Type: Process Created: 2018-07-03
|
Table of Contents
|
A Bytom Improvement Proposal (BMIP) is a design document providing information to the Bytom community, or describing a new feature for Bytom or its processes or environment. The BMIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature.
We intend BMIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Bytom. The BMIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.
Because the BMIPs are maintained as text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal.
There are three kinds of BMIP:
The BMIP process begins with a new idea for Bytom. Each potential BMIP must have a champion -- someone who writes the BMIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate ways, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The BMIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is BMIP-able. Posting to the development community.
Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BMIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time. Many ideas have been brought forward for changing Bytom that have been rejected for various reasons. Asking the Bytom community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where Bytom is used. Small enhancements or patches often don't need standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need a BMIP and should be injected into the relevant Bytom development work flow with a patch submission to the applicable Bytom issue tracker.
Once the champion has asked the Bytom community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft BMIP should be presented to the community. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft BMIP to make it properly formatted, of high quality, and to address additional concerns about the proposal. Following a discussion, the proposal should be sent to the bytom-dev community and the BMIP editor with the draft BMIP. This draft must be written in BMIP style as described below, else it will be sent back without further regard until proper formatting rules are followed.
BMIP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on both the initial idea and the BMIP before submitting it for review. However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on the public forum should be avoided.
It is highly recommended that a single BMIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the BMIP, the more successful it tends to be. If in doubt, split your BMIP into several well-focused ones.
The BMIP editors assign BMIP numbers and change their status. Please send all BMIP-related email to the BMIP editor, which is listed under BMIP Editors below. Also see BMIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow. The BMIP editor reserves the right to reject BMIP proposals if they appear too unfocused or too broad.
Authors MUST NOT self assign BMIP numbers, but should use an alias such as "BMIP-bob-posbytoms" which includes the author's name/nick and the BMIP subject.
If the BMIP editor approves, he will assign the BMIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Meta, give it status "Draft", and add it to the BMIPs git repository. The BMIP editor will not unreasonably deny a BMIP. Reasons for denying BMIP status include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Bytom philosophy. For a BMIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly.
The BMIP author may update the Draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates to drafts may also be submitted by the author as pull requests.
Standards Track BMIPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. The BMIP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a reference implementation will aid people in studying the BMIP. Standards Track BMIPs must include an implementation -- in the form of code, a patch, or a URL to same -- before it can be considered Final.
Once a BMIP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the community, the status will be changed to "Final".
A BMIP can also be assigned status "Deferred". The BMIP author or editor can assign the BMIP this status when no progress is being made on the BMIP. Once a BMIP is deferred, the BMIP editor can re-assign it to draft status.
A BMIP can also be "Rejected". Perhaps after all is said and done it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of this fact.
BMIPs can also be superseded by a different BMIP, rendering the original obsolete. This is intended for Informational BMIPs, where version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
The possible paths of the status of BMIPs are as follows:
Some Informational and Process BMIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. BMIP 1 (this BMIP).
Each BMIP should have the following parts:
BMIPs should be written in mediawiki or markdown format.
Each BMIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with "*" are optional and are described below. All other headers are required.
BMIP: <BMIP number>
Title: <BMIP title>
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
* Discussions-To: <email address>
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Rejected |
Withdrawn | Final | Superseded>
Type: <Standards Track | Informational | Meta>
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
* Post-History: <dates of postings to bytom community>
* Replaces: <BMIP number>
* Superseded-By: <BMIP number>
* Resolution: <url>
The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses of all the authors/owners of the BMIP. The format of the Author header value must be
Random J. User <[email protected]>
if the email address is included, and just
Random J. User
if the address is not given.
If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions.
Note: The Resolution header is required for Standards Track BMIPs only. It contains a URL that should point to an email message or other web resource where the pronouncement about the BMIP is made.
While a BMIP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the URL where the BMIP is being discussed. No Discussions-To header is necessary if the BMIP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the bytom community.
The Type header specifies the type of BMIP: Standards Track, Informational, or Process.
The Created header records the date that the BMIP was assigned a number, while Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the BMIP are posted to bytom community. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14.
BMIPs may have a Requires header, indicating the BMIP numbers that this BMIP depends on.
BMIPs may also have a Superseded-By header indicating that a BMIP has been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the BMIP that replaces the current document. The newer BMIP must have a Replaces header containing the number of the BMIP that it rendered obsolete.
BMIPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Image files should be included in a subdirectory for that BMIP. Auxiliary files must be named BMIP-XXXX-Y.ext, where "XXXX" is the BMIP number, "Y" is a serial number (starting at 1), and "ext" is replaced by the actual file extension (e.g. "png").
It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of BMIPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred BMIP, but that's really up to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the time or interest in updating it or following through with the BMIP process, or has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with the direction of the BMIP. We try to build consensus around a BMIP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing BMIP.
If you are interested in assuming ownership of a BMIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the BMIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, the BMIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).
The current BMIP editor is Lang Yu who can be contacted at [email protected].
For each new BMIP that comes in an editor does the following:
Once the BMIP is ready for the repository it should be submitted as a "pull request" to the bytom/bmips repository on GitHub where it may get further feedback.
The BMIP editor will:
New BMIPs may be accepted with the following licenses. Each new BMIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. The License header in the preamble must be placed after the Created header. Each license must be referenced by their respective abbreviation given below.
For example, a preamble might include the following License header:
License: BSD-2-Clause
GNU-All-Permissive
In this case, the BMIP text is fully licensed under both the OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license as well as the GNU All-Permissive License, and anyone may modify and redistribute the text provided they comply with the terms of *either* license. In other words, the license list is an "OR choice", not an "AND also" requirement.
It is also possible to license source code differently from the BMIP text. A optional License-Code header is placed after the License header. Again, each license must be referenced by their respective abbreviation given below.
For example, a preamble specifying the optional License-Code header might look like:
License: BSD-2-Clause
GNU-All-Permissive
License-Code: GPL-2.0+
In this case, the code in the BMIP is not available under the BSD or All-Permissive licenses, but only under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer. If the code were to be available under *only* version 2 exactly, the "+" symbol should be removed from the license abbreviation. For a later version (eg, GPL 3.0), you would increase the version number (and retain or remove the "+" depending on intent).
License-Code: GPL-2.0 # This refers to GPL v2.0 *only*, no later license versions are acceptable.
License-Code: GPL-2.0+ # This refers to GPL v2.0 *or later*.
License-Code: GPL-3.0 # This refers to GPL v3.0 *only*, no later license versions are acceptable.
License-Code: GPL-3.0+ # This refers to GPL v3.0 *or later*.
In the event that the licensing for the text or code is too complicated to express with a simple list of alternatives, the list should instead be replaced with the single term "Complex". In all cases, details of the licensing terms must be provided in the Copyright section of the BMIP.
BMIPs are not required to be *exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under unacceptable licenses *in addition to* at least one acceptable license. In this case, only the acceptable license(s) should be listed in the License and License-Code headers.
All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Bytom Improvement Proposal unless a later BMIP extends this one to add them. However, BMIPs predating the acceptance of this BMIP were allowed under other terms, and should use these abbreviation when no other license is granted:
此处可能存在不合适展示的内容，页面不予展示。您可通过相关编辑功能自查并修改。
如您确认内容无涉及 不当用语 / 纯广告导流 / 暴力 / 低俗色情 / 侵权 / 盗版 / 虚假 / 无价值内容或违法国家有关法律法规的内容，可点击提交进行申诉，我们将尽快为您处理。
马建仓 AI 助手