Skip to content
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

Update EIP-1: Clear rules regarding EIP numbering #6976

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Pandapip1
Copy link
Member

This also paves the way for "draft" EIP numbers being officially used.

@Pandapip1 Pandapip1 requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner May 2, 2023 15:29
@github-actions github-actions bot added c-update Modifies an existing proposal t-process labels May 2, 2023
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented May 2, 2023

File EIPS/eip-1.md

Requires 2 more reviewers from @axic, @gcolvin, @lightclient, @SamWilsn

@eth-bot eth-bot added the e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus label May 2, 2023
EIPS/eip-1.md Outdated
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks:

**Idea** - An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository.

**Draft** - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when properly formatted.
**Draft** - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when properly formatted. EIP editors and accounts authorized by any EIP editor can assign EIP numbers, which need not be unsigned integers. EIP numbers can also be unassigned by the account that assigned that number, as long as it is not the only assigned number. If multiple numbers are assigned, the EIP author is free to choose from any of the assigned numbers.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think about moving the number rules to the same place as the other preamble fields? So in a subsection just above here.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel that this belongs more in the "process" section than that one. But I don't feel strongly either way.

I won't be able to make the next EIPIP meeting (again...) but I will accept your decision whatever it is.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there more info on how draft numbers work?

The current process as I understand it is:
EIP editor assigns the PR number as the EIP/ERC number unless there were previous issues/PRs then the earliest issue/PR number should be used, or there is number gaming or lunging (e.g. PR with no spec or little details), then a non-EIP related PR number below the PR number can be issued.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When I refer to "draft" EIP numbers, I'm referring to 'numbers' like draft_proposal_name_here (for an identifier of EIP-draft_proposal_name_here).

As for the process of assigning numbers, it is soon to be automated.

Copy link
Contributor

@g11tech g11tech May 3, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are alpha numeric numbers are for drafts only? because ELs (like ethereumjs) uses number to configure EIP in a particular hardfork,

even if we go with alphanumeric (requiring ELs to make some changes) it has to be concise short code, not sure how meaningful they might be compared with the number

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"draft" EIP numbers

Non-numeric EIP/ERC numbers are harder to succinctly refer to. e.g. in core devs discussions, or in newsletters

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Non-numeric EIP/ERC numbers are harder to succinctly refer to. e.g. in core devs discussions, or in newsletters

I'm hoping that EIPs shouldn't need to stay in draft for long.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unfortunately they tend to.

EIPS/eip-1.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor

timbeiko commented May 4, 2023

Sorry if I missed part of the conversation here, but what is the rationale to not restrict numbering to unsigned integers?

Many EIPs end up in draft for far too long, and having the number change can cause confusion both within the community and potentially some technical issues when it changes in clients, along with the extra work for clients to have to support alphanumeric characters in their configs, as mentioned by @g11tech.

I'm also mildly against re-using old numbers: we've got about 1/10 used in the current scheme, why not simply backfill to a never used one? At the very least, it feels like if something like this is being considered, it'd warrant broader community input.

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor

SamWilsn commented May 8, 2023

Sorry if I missed part of the conversation here, but what is the rationale to not restrict numbering to unsigned integers?

In pre-draft pull requests, the EIP's "number" is an escaped version of the title. Some editors would like to extend those non-numbered file names into draft proposals. It makes it much clearer that the proposal is still a draft, and shouldn't be depended upon yet.

Many EIPs end up in draft for far too long

That is part of the motivation to make drafts even draftier.

having the number change can cause confusion both within the community and potentially some technical issues when it changes in clients

There would be no number change. You'd go from eip-this_is_my_title.md to eip-1234.md when you go from Draft to Review, hypothetically.

@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor

timbeiko commented May 8, 2023

Fair enough, then re: "That is part of the motivation to make drafts even draftier.", could it be possible to move from Draft to Review without requiring an Editor +1?

One more thing that would be good if we "make drafts draftier" would be to not block moving to Review based on another EIP's status

@abcoathup
Copy link
Contributor

There would be no number change. You'd go from eip-this_is_my_title.md to eip-1234.md when you go from Draft to Review, hypothetically.

Long draft names will be a challenge for those referring to them. Especially when titles change.
I would much prefer a prefix or suffix to indicate draftiness DRAFT-EIP-9999, which is then dropped at the review stage.

How does this scheme work with auto-assigned EIP numbers?

@lightclient
Copy link
Member

i also prefer referring to draft EIPs with a prefix instead of long draft names

@Pandapip1
Copy link
Member Author

Non-numeric EIP/ERC numbers are harder to succinctly refer to. e.g. in core devs discussions, or in newsletters

The concern that was brought up was that if actual numbers were assigned at Draft, then there would be a lot of spam if #5641 were implemented.

@Pandapip1 Pandapip1 dismissed a stale review via 595dc53 May 11, 2023 20:51
@abcoathup
Copy link
Contributor

The concern that was brought up was that if actual numbers were assigned at Draft, then there would be a lot of spam if #5641 were implemented.

Assuming automerging of PRs once they pass validation is a spam risk, and EIP numbers could be wasted if they were autoassigned at this stage: Instead we need a quick mechanism for EIP editors to assign automatic EIP numbers, such as a tag or a label once an EIP has been merged. EIP numbers could be increasing with some random element to avoid any perception of favored number assignment.

@Pandapip1
Copy link
Member Author

Pandapip1 commented May 19, 2023

Assuming automerging of PRs once they pass validation is a spam risk, and EIP numbers could be wasted if they were autoassigned at this stage: Instead we need a quick mechanism for EIP editors to assign automatic EIP numbers, such as a tag or a label once an EIP has been merged.

That's what the draft_* EIP numbers + eip-review-bot are meant to solve.

EIP numbers could be increasing with some random element to avoid any perception of favored number assignment.

That's what eip-review-bot is going to do once some of the issues are sorted out.

@github-actions
Copy link

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR 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.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the w-stale Waiting on activity label Oct 27, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the w-stale Waiting on activity label Nov 28, 2023
Copy link

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR 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.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the w-stale Waiting on activity label Dec 12, 2023
Copy link

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.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Jan 23, 2024
Copy link

@Scamreno Scamreno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm just trying to get this process taken care of because like I was just trying to find a way to just to get some of my funds to my account because right now I got I have a lot of assets and I know what's going on but I don't understand why I'm getting it off so I've been taking me a while right now me and my family homeless right now so if there's anybody on this network they can be able to help me out so I can believe it get these things taken care of please let me know

@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks:

**Idea** - An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository.

**Draft** - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when properly formatted. EIP editors and accounts authorized by any EIP editor can assign EIP numbers, which need not be unsigned integers. EIP numbers can also be unassigned by the account that assigned that number, as long as it is not the only assigned number. If multiple numbers are assigned, the EIP author is free to choose from any of the assigned numbers.
**Draft** - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when properly formatted. EIP editors and accounts authorized by any EIP editor can assign EIP numbers, which need not be unsigned integers for EIPs with a status of Draft. EIP numbers can also be unassigned by the account that assigned that number, as long as it is not the only assigned number. If multiple numbers are assigned, the EIP author is free to choose from any of the assigned numbers.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Only

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am ready for my review

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also was trying to open some of my old files that because of non-inactivity #8630 #8682 #8369 #6976

Copy link

@Scamreno Scamreno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Scamreno
Copy link

Uploading @@VID_20240618_183251.mp4…7

Copy link

@Scamreno Scamreno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Scamreno referenced this pull request Jun 22, 2024
* Fix EIP-Bot CI

* Add newline to CODEOWNERS

* Make changes for testing

* Test if GH Actions is a valid codeowner

* It isn't allowed

* Fix infinite loop

* Do some tricks to avoid unneccesary extra runs

* Fixing bug

* Add Pandapip1-bot

* Fix quotes

* Another fix bites the dust

* Another fix

* Another thing

* Use my testing fork

* More fixes

* Unpin while in dev

* Add testing bot to codeowners

* Is that the bug?

* Try this fix

* Quickfix

* That was an easy fix

* Remove Pandapip1-bot references

* Update diff

* Missed some

* Pin to commit
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c-update Modifies an existing proposal e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus t-process w-stale Waiting on activity
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants