-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
EIPIP Meeting 97 #302
Comments
I would like to discuss about the following in order to be merged or closed and remove the stale on that EIP. They have been moved from meeting to meeting but still not discussed. |
Zoom Link ? |
Summary1. EIP Process StandardizationWeb Page Rendering
RIP process documentation, Type & Category for Rollup proposals, Need for update definition of Standard Track - Core in EIP-1?
2. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics
All merged. Call for Input
3. Other discussions continued or updates from past meetings
Why Final EIPs are "Immutable"?
other proposalsUpdate on Versioning Scheme for EIPs
4. EIPs Insight - Monthly EIPs status reporting.
5. EIP Editing Office Hour
Next EIPIP meeting
|
Closing in favor of #305 |
@SamWilsn @g11tech @poojaranjan all of the ERC1363 PRs (74, 75, 76) have been closed also if I split changes as suggested here 31#issuecomment-1785558107. Changes are only text updates in order to remove link to unuseful content and move content in the right section as specified in the new EIP1. They wanted to align ERC to the suggested new format. What is the sense to suggest create a new EIP with the same code source concept and just only different text. Will this not cause confusion with people using ERC1363 or ERC[new-ID]? These will be duplicated content and unuseful new ERC. Two standard with different identifier. It is like creating a new ERC20 standard just to update the rationale content. |
@vittominacori Final proposals are immutable, with very few exceptions. EIP Editors aren't technical experts, so we don't like to be put in the position of determining whether a particular text change introduces subtle changes to the specification. Contracts written against ERC-1363 cannot be changed on-chain to match the latest version of a proposal, so we require any overhauls like this to be done in a new proposal (with a new number.) Even if someone wanted to update ERC-20, we'd have to get them to do it in a new document. Some of your changes aren't necessary, like changing the Moving the simple summary to description is appreciated, but that pull request also included other changes to the body itself, so I can't merge it. I closed all of these PRs because you are proposing good changes, but ERC-1363 is not the place to make them. |
@vittominacori would the hypothetical publishing-pipeline feature request I proposed in #306 address your concern enough that you'd open a new ERC "duplicating" the entirety of the finalized 1363 and then editing relevant sections (i.e. superceding) or rewriting a few specific sections in a standalone informational EIP (i.e. updating) the finalized text? |
@SamWilsn I agree that Final EIPs can't be updated but I also consider that the ERC1363 was started in 2018 so after 6 years something may be updated to modernize the ERC. Obviously nothing MUST be changed in logic but I would have addressed some obsolete texts, remove any unuseful link to other EIPs that are not strictly related to the ERC, move some texts and fix relative path in order to accomplish the new EIP1 recommendation. Nothing was changed in code logic. Anyway I think that create a new number just for some text updates will only cause confusion. Having ERC-(X) and ERC-(X+n) both talking about the same rationale may duplicate content and create multiple discussion point. Also if the ERC-(X) will be not updated with a reference to the new content people will be impossibilitate to know that it has been updated. Also searching will deflect as people must search for each ERC that reference the original one. Versioning is very important but only if this changes the code logic or fix a bug or point out an issue, but not for text updates. If you think that some of the changes I proposed could be inserted and merged feel free to ask for opening a new PR against the original one. |
Date and Time
Jan 03, 2024 at 15:00 UTC
Location
Zoom: TBA in the Discord #eip-editing channel
YouTube Recording: EIPIP Meetings
Agenda
1. EIP Process Standardization
2. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics
Call for Input
3. Other discussions continued or updates from past meetings
Changes to
Final
EIPsFinal
EIPs are "Immutable"?Final
EIPs can be updated.other proposals
4. EIPs Insight - Monthly EIPs status reporting.
5. EIP Editing Office Hour
6. Review action items from earlier meetings
Next Meeting date & time
Jan 17 at 15:00 UTC?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: