Publish EIP-67 as withdrawn #5338
Conversation
|
Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s): (fail) eip-67.md
|
| @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| eip: 67 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| title: URI Scheme with Metadata, Value and Bytecode | ||
| description: Format for encoding transactions into a URI | ||
| author: Alex Van de Sande (@alexvandesande) | ||
| discussions-to: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/67 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO, this should be grandfathered in.
|
The commit 88253b2 (as a parent of 9a1ae5b) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
| ## Rationale | ||
|
|
||
| TODO | ||
|
|
||
| ## Security Considerations | ||
|
|
||
| TODO |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## Rationale | |
| TODO | |
| ## Security Considerations | |
| TODO |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aren't these both required sections, that we normally allow with only TODO in the draft state?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess. It seems weird to be terminally putting them in as a "TODO" that can never be done.
EIPS/eip-67.md
Outdated
| type: Standards Track | ||
| category: ERC | ||
| created: 2016-02-17 | ||
| withdrawal-reason: Superseded by EIP-831 |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Huh, is markdown supported in the preamble? I've always assumed it wasn't!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it isn't. This is fine.
| This is the same function as above, to send 5 unicorns from he sender to _deadbeef_, but now with a more readable function, which the client converts to bytecode. | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| ethereum:0x89205A3A3b2A69De6Dbf7f01ED13B2108B2c43e7?gas=100000&function=transfer(address 0xdeadbeef, uint 5) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
function isn't included in the spec?!
SamWilsn
force-pushed
the
withdraw-eip-67
branch
from
88253b2 to
958d9da
Compare
|
I approve this. However notice that I don't have access to the old account @alexvandesande but instead this is the new one @alexvansande. You can check that the history matches. Not sure if the bot will allow it. |
|
Huh, this isn't the expected output. There should have to be at least one approving editor. |
|
An editor submitted the PR, and the system counts editor author as an "editor approval" at the moment. Same reason why the bot will auto-merge PRs by editors in some cases I believe. |
Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>
|
The commit 9c6ac2e (as a parent of ff00f96) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
This isn't the case though. I have two open PRs to create ERCs that need editor approval (despite the fact that I am an ERC editor) |
|
You'll need to approve this whenever you're ready @alexvansande. |
I think the way it works is that you need 1 editor approval and 1 author approval. The person who submits the PR can fulfill either the editor approval requirement or the author approval requirement but not both. In this case, Sam has fulfilled the editor approval requirement but we still need author approval requirement fulfilled. In your example cases, you have fulfilled the author approval requirement, but we still need the editor approval requirement fulfilled. |
|
@alexvansande this is ready for approval. |
* Publish EIP-67 as withdrawn * Change author to new username Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>
@ligi wants to refer to this EIP in EIP-831.
@alexvandesande this'll need your approval. Two important things to note: