Muir Glacier postmortem report #2809
Conversation
Muir Glacier upgrade postmortem.
|
I don't think the EIP repository is the proper place for this sort of document. IMO, nothing about Ethereum mainnet operations should be included here, including the hardfore meta EIPs. I know there are mixed feelings on this topic in general, but I feel like a post mortem pretty substantially crosses the line of "not a standard". |
|
The description of an Informational EIP suggests it to be a placeholder for general guidelines or information to the Ethereum community even if it does not propose a new feature. This PR is created to add an Informational EIP to store the Muir Glacier upgrade postmortem report based on a decision item coming from the EIPIP meeting |
|
It does appear that in an EIPIP meeting it was decided to include it, so I won't use this PR to fight against that ruling, but I will leave it to someone else to actually merge this as it leaves a sour taste in my mouth as massive scope creep for the EIPs repository. I really don't think that this repository should be a generalized place to document Ethereum going ons. |
|
Also, I'm not sure how you are going to get through CI with this since we don't have a mechanism for overriding CI at the moment (at least, I don't). |
| --- | ||
| eip: TBD | ||
| title: Muir Glacier upgrade postmortem report | ||
| author: James Hancock and Pooja Ranjan |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI, this formatting for authors is invalid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| author: James Hancock and Pooja Ranjan | |
| author: James Hancock, Pooja Ranjan |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| author: James Hancock and Pooja Ranjan | |
| author: James Hancock (@MadeofTin), Pooja Ranjan (@poojaranjan) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe either an email address or GitHub handle is required @lightclient, not just names.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Theoretically" EIP-1 allows for only names in the author field. Not saying that's good though!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TIL that handle/email is not required. 😄 Keep in mind, without that the bot will never auto-merge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lightclient @MicahZoltu I've incorporated suggested changes yet 'All checks have failed', what am I missing?
Due to ongoing discussion of where this informational EIP should be stored, I understand it can't be merged just yet, but wondering about the correct format to be able to move beyond the bot check.
Adding suggested changes by reviewers * Rename file * Author name format * Added sections - Test cases - Implementations - Security considerations
|
I believe the issue is that the bot demands that all EIPs follow the EIP naming convention, which is |
|
If you change the file name to |
Renamed file and added EIP number.
renamed file case in lower case.
I tried renaming the file even in lower case but it looks like something else is missing. |
Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com>
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for two months. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. If you would like to move this EIP forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment. |
Muir Glacier upgrade postmortem.
When opening a pull request to submit a new EIP, please use the suggested template: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-template.md
We have a GitHub bot that automatically merges some PRs. It will merge yours immediately if certain criteria are met: