Skip to content

Conversation

@nothingmuch
Copy link
Contributor

@nothingmuch nothingmuch commented Jul 8, 2025

BIP 3 introduced a Version field in the header with semver inspired syntax. This PR allows the inclusion of this field and checks that it matches the <MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH> format.

Copy link
Contributor

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, this looks great!

There is just the hitch that BIP 3 is "Proposed", but not active yet. I’m working on a PR to suggest activation of BIP 3 in #1820. Seeing your PR, I had actually overlooked that I wasn’t adding the Version field to the buildtable script, so thanks for putting this together. I would propose to cherry-pick this commit into #1820, if that’s okay for you, because the Version field doesn’t exist in the BIP 2 process, and we will need to allow it when BIP 3 becomes active. Alternatively, we could merge your PR alongside #1820, when BIP 3 is activated.

Meanwhile it seems fine to me for BIP authors to use the Changelog section without putting the Version field in the preamble, and we can then backfill the version fields to the corresponding BIPs after BIP 3 activates.

@murchandamus murchandamus added the Process Trying to update process or stuck due to disagreement about Process label Jul 8, 2025
@nothingmuch
Copy link
Contributor Author

I would propose to cherry-pick this commit into #1820, if that’s okay for you, because the Version field doesn’t exist in the BIP 2 process, and we will need to allow it when BIP 3 becomes active. Alternatively, we could merge your PR alongside #1820, when BIP 3 is activated.

Sure, I would prefer whatever minimizes hassle for BIP editors, so sounds like cherry-picking into 1820 and removing the version field from 1890 for now makes the most sense, but I defer to your judgement

@murchandamus murchandamus mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2025
6 tasks
@murchandamus
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, I added it to the PR #1820.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Process Trying to update process or stuck due to disagreement about Process

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants