bitcoin
docs: fix spelling
Another lot of spelling fixes and this has 53 additions and some that are not in the other PRs
The other two PRs for typo fixes only have 28 and 21 additions.
refs #579 refs #675
I'm not a fan of these bulk spelling fixes across a large number of different BIPs in a single PR if each minor change to a BIP needs to be ACKed by the BIP champion(s).
I think going forward, we either allow minor spelling fixes to be merged without the BIP champion(s) being notified and ACKing them or we ask spelling fix PRs to only change one specific BIP at a time. The former would be a change to current BIP processes but perhaps could be included when we revise BIP processes at a future date.
edit: Found this previous PR from @luke-jr to allow BIP editors to merge minor spelling changes without ACKs from BIP champion(s) and concerns were raised. Hence I think we should ask spelling fix PRs to only change one specific BIP at a time and not bundle spelling fixes across BIPs into one PR.
I think each PR should address a specific BIP and be approved by their respective authors.
I think each PR should address a specific BIP and be approved by their respective authors.
I think these bulk spelling fix PRs across BIPs will need to be discouraged and eventually closed then. @luke-jr has also struggled to get BIP authors to care about minor spelling fixes. Thanks for the PR @jbampton but getting all the BIP champion(s) to ACK all the changes in a PR like this just isn't feasible.
@dr-orlovsky It would be nice if BIP editors could just merge spelling changes, but unfortunately the current process requires each author to ACK.
@dr-orlovsky It would be nice if BIP editors could just merge spelling changes, but unfortunately the current process requires each author to ACK.
We should address this as part of the revised next process, IMO.
@jbampton This pull needs rebase due to merge conflicts in bip_0174.mediawiki and bip_0330.mediawiki that need to be resolved.
I‘ve fixed the merge conflicts with BIP174 and BIP330 (where the passages in which the typo appeared had both been amended independently).
