Use a table for SIPS (draft -> ratified)#260
Conversation
|
to see how this would look if merged, check my branch readme: https://github.com/wileyj/sips/tree/chore/update_readme |
|
I like tables for display 👍
could do one table per list with a detail block to allow expand/contract too: SIPsRatified SIPs
In-Progress SIPs
this is the issue either way. if we know the exact flow a SIP should take on GitHub then we can make sure this gets updated when we merge in the ratified status. #145 was the first attempt at that |
neat! the expandable table is nice, my approach was definitely KISS - but i'm not opposed to refactoring to your suggestion (will wait for more feedback). The one thing i would add between the two approaches is your suggestion would require slightly more care, since an editor would be moving a row from one table to another. other than that, i don't see anything that would prevent using your method vs what was proposed (and to be clear, that's a process/people issue vs anything technical). I also looked at the issue - definitely agree there needs to be some standard process in place. to that end, i have been picking away at an update to sip-000, perhaps we can codify what's expected there? |
|
I personally like the KISS approach as per Jw's file. One step closer aligned with Bitcoin's organization structure. Showing all available ideas even if they are fully ratified. Only thing we might want to display in that table is the GAPS i.e. SIP-014 and SIP-017 are also displayed as a line item in the list, and saying it's available to be assigned? So that SIP Editors can utilize those slots. |
|
Cross-posting this here for visibility, original in reply to a question from Brice on Discord about why some SIP numbers are not present/used. At the time, authors of SIPs may have picked a number for their SIP rather than waiting for someone else to assign one, out of an abundance of caution, picked numbers they were sure weren't in use yet. It also looks like 017 was briefly assigned/used for this https://github.com/stacksgov/sips/pull/56/files and 014 was briefly used for a standard for smart contract documentation but I don't think it got past draft status #32. SIP-011 is also missing, that is because it wasn't activated. I remember Jude said that they don't have to be given in chronological order. We can still give 14 or 17 to a SIP in the future. Perhaps it will make sense for some future sip to give it a lower number like 14 or 17. In the meantime we can do as you did and hand out numbers from where we are (36... and now 42). I don't think we should reorder existing SIP just because of the references in documentation to the current numbers. It would cause unnecessary confusion. For the same reason, I don't think we should reuse SIP numbers once they have been assigned to a SIP, even if they eventually are not merged. They may still be after revision, and we prevent confusion by ensuring a SIP number does not refer to two completely different improvement proposals. |
5 participants
Need to verify the links and activation status, but this is currently up to date and gives a nicer 1-pager of sips.
rather than the standard list of ratified sips - this change adds a markdown table of all sips that have been accepted and a number assigned (no matter the status).
the caveat is this will need to be updated regularly by sip editors (etc) so it remains current.