by

Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Sep 02 2018 09:26
    @Arachnid banned @johnny_musk_twitter
  • Jun 06 2018 10:22
    @Arachnid banned @ethsupport1
  • Oct 21 2017 19:12
    @Arachnid banned @Musk11
  • Jun 05 2016 10:37
    @chriseth banned @adamskee
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
@MadeofTin Yeah, I'm a fan. It aligns with my goals of the EIPs repository being "just technical standards".
Pooja Ranjan
@poojaranjan
James Hancock
@MadeofTin

@MadeofTin Yeah, I'm a fan. It aligns with my goals of the EIPs repository being "just technical standards

👍

Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
@lightclient I have a couple PRs that are stuck because Withdrawn isn't a valid status. The validator has been updated to support Withdrawn, but I don't believe it has been deployed. What do you think a realistic timeline is for getting a new version of the validator deployed so I can set a calendar reminder that is reasonable?
I have been snoozing a notification for a couple weeks now, and I need a new strategy. :P
lightclient
@lightclient
@MicahZoltu my goal is to have the new validator completed by next EIPIP meeting (aug 12)
if the old validator has been updated to support the new statuses, it should be really easy to deploy it. I'll take a look
(i see your pr hasn't been merged to it, once someone does that it should just be a matter of releasing a new gem and updating the version on the EIPs repo
lightclient
@lightclient
one question i have is: are we mixing the new statuses and the old statuses?
Alex Beregszaszi
@axic
What is the new validator? I have written a JavaScript version which is way more strict months ago, just had no motivation to push it.
Also was there any widespread agreement on the new statuses? I know we have discussed withdrawn 2 months ago on an EIPIP meeting, but that had a low turn out rate.
lightclient
@lightclient
i've been working on a rust version here: https://github.com/lightclient/eipv
i'm not sure if there was widespread agreement, my understanding was that the new EIP statuses were still being defined and were months away from being finalized (waiting until there is also a better definition of the network upgrade process)
Alex Beregszaszi
@axic

i've been working on a rust version here: https://github.com/lightclient/eipv

Looks good! Why rust though? I am a big Rust fan, but chose Javascript for inclusivity, i.e. every editor understands JS.

lightclient
@lightclient
Selfishly, I prefer rust. That's a good point though, JS would foster more inclusivity
(looking at the commit log on the eip_validator, it looks like you're the only editor that has contributed to it)
i also was hoping to minimize the number of runtime errors from the validator in CI, so i felt rust would help that
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
I originally had Abandoned but I think @MadeofTin suggested Withdrawn instead.
For a couple DRAFT PRs from years ago.
My preference would be to just delete the PR entirely, but it was indicated that there is a desire to keep things forever on the EIPs site, even if they never were followed through.
James Hancock
@MadeofTin

Also was there any widespread agreement on the new statuses?

Yes

Greg Colvin
@gcolvin

@MicahZoltu

it was indicated that there is a desire to keep things forever on the EIPs site, even if they never were followed through.

That is my strong preference. You suggested they at least be closed, which suits me fine. Reduce the clutter without destroying the history and intellectual effort.

Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Yeah, that is what lead me to use Abandoned, but then I was told that Withdrawn was correct, but the bot doesn't actually support Withdrawn so now my PRs are sitting in limbo until @lightclient gets a new release out (since it sounds like he is in charge of the validator bot at the moment).
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
You can always close them, @MicahZoltu . That’s how you say in most Github projects that you no longer want to merge something. And how you leave it for someone else to reopen if they wish.
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
In this case they already are merged as DRAFT, I want to get them out of DRAFT status as they are no longer being pursued.
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
In such a system it’s a draft forever ;)
(I’m of the “why do we need so many statuses?” school if you didn’t notice ;)
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
I think there is value in having DRAFTS eventually leave leave DRAFT status, otherwise the list becomes unboundedly large and useless. I think there is value in users being able to see drafts that will almost certainly never see the light of day, and drafts that are under active iteration.
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
I just realized that @MadeofTin submitted a PR to the validator in May that added Withdrawn, and a year ago @axic submitted a PR to remove Deferred. Is there a reason these PRs aren't getting merged? Is this just an issue of ownership, where no one feels comfortable merging themselves? Is there disagreement with either of them? Is no one with write access to that repository available?
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
No Editors with spare cycles to discuss it.
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
I propose that if the editors that do have cycles to review agree, then we should move forward.
I totally understand that being an editor is unpaid and largely thankless and I definitely don't think there should be any expectation that editors contribute a certain amount of time to EIP work. However, if one or more editors is too busy, I also don't think that should block the whole process.
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
Well, we have another editor now :)
James Hancock
@MadeofTin

I just realized that @MadeofTin submitted a PR to the validator in May that added Withdrawn, and a year ago @axic submitted a PR to remove Deferred. Is there a reason these PRs aren't getting merged?

Mine was because @axic wanted to wait until an EIP for adding WITHDRAWN was submitted.

This then started the conversation on the new Status list that got us where we are today.
Recently I’ve been focusing on the network upgrade stuff, as I think pushing something on that is important before we retire the ACCEPTED status.
Once we get the repo for Hardfork coordination up then I say we make a PR to change the status and move forward.
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Since I totally screwed this up the first time when merging my own DRAFT PR, figured it would be reasonable to get a second set of eyes when fixing my failure: ethereum/EIPs#2847
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
We have no requirement for RFC 2119 right? If an author doesn't want to use it, they don't have to?
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Also, what is our stance on people who use the sections incorrectly and don't want to change that? e.g., putting motivation stuff in the abstract or abstract stuff in the specification? Do we just offer the best advice we can and merge to Last Call/Final anyway, or do we require them to get some editor to agree with them that their stuff is in the right section?
(if the latter, I have an EIP for you all to review that I think doesn't have stuff in the right sections)
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
I think we should pretty much treat the sections as advisory. If the proposal is clear as written I don’t want to fight with an author — it could be a lot of work to rewrite it and keep it clear. If it’s really just a little cut-and-paste that might be different, but laying out a whole policy in advance doesn’t seem worth the trouble.
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
:thumbsup:
In this case, the author simply disagrees with me on what content is appropriate for what sections, I don't think it is an issue of difficulty of the change. :smile:
If someone other than me wants to review this move to Last Call that would likely be appreciated by the author. :smiley: ethereum/EIPs#2832
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
I’ll get to when I can - traveling now - thanks
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
@lightclient Would be cool if the automated EIP spellchecker left suggestion comments (the ones that let you one-click apply) on so the author doesn't have to go through and manually fix them all.
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Any editors get a chance to check out ethereum/EIPs#2832 for moving into Last Call? Its review end period continues to approach...
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
Hi @MicahZoltu still at lodge with no WiFi and almost no 4G. Skimmed comments on #2832, not sure why you can't move it and deal with any remaining issues in Last Call. I haven't bandwidth for more, Sorry.