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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Update EIP-7212: Move to Moved #8101

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update EIP-7212: Move to Moved #8101

wants to merge 4 commits into from
+3 −256

Conversation

CarlBeek
Copy link
Contributor

@CarlBeek CarlBeek commented Jan 9, 2024

As an artifact of the new RIP process, EIP-7212 has been converted from an EIP to an RIP. As RIP-7212 has already been created and there are no EIPs that depend on EIP-7212, it makes sense to just delete here to complete the move. CC @poojaranjan @ulerdogan

@CarlBeek CarlBeek requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner January 9, 2024 20:14
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Jan 9, 2024 •
edited

✅ All reviewers have approved.

@eth-bot eth-bot added a-review Waiting on author to review e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus labels Jan 9, 2024
ulerdogan
ulerdogan suggested changes Jan 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ulerdogan ulerdogan left a comment •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hello Carl. Thanks for applying decided changes on EIP->RIP process. I recommend also deleting following files which are referenced by the EIP:

  • ./assets/eip-7212/p256Verify_benchmark_test
  • ./assets/eip-7212/ecrecover_benchmark_test

@CarlBeek
Copy link
Contributor Author

CarlBeek commented Jan 9, 2024

ACK, thanks @ulerdogan, ./assets/eip-7212/ removed too

ulerdogan
ulerdogan approved these changes Jan 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ulerdogan ulerdogan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, I think ready to go!

RIP EIP-7212 😢🪦

@poojaranjan
Copy link
Contributor

Perhaps we can "move" and not "remove".

At the time of EIP/ERC split many ERCs were moved out of EIPs repo but ERC history was preserved. Like this.

@CarlBeek
Copy link
Contributor Author

CarlBeek commented Jan 9, 2024 •
edited

Interesting, I like it! I have updated the EIP to refer to its new RIP home as you suggested @poojaranjan

@github-actions github-actions bot added the c-status Changes a proposal's status label Jan 9, 2024
@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title Removes EIP-7212 as was moved to the RIPs repo as RIP-7212 now Update EIP-7212: Move to Moved Jan 9, 2024
@eth-bot eth-bot enabled auto-merge (squash) January 9, 2024 21:18
eth-bot
eth-bot previously approved these changes Jan 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@eth-bot eth-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

CarlBeek
CarlBeek commented Jan 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
EIPS/eip-7212.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
auto-merge was automatically disabled January 9, 2024 21:43

Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access

@ulerdogan
Copy link
Contributor

We don't have RIP category defined on the EIP-1. Do we need a change there? I think we can keep as it is in the Core category as EIP itself was a 'Core EIP' similar to the moved ERCs' categories were still ERC.

@poojaranjan
Copy link
Contributor

@ulerdogan

We don't have RIP category defined on the EIP-1. Do we need a change there?

As we progress with a proposal, an author gets more clarity on the Type/Category. Changing either or both for a proposal before it is moved to Final is fine

There is a general agreement on adding RIP as a Standard Track Category discussed in EIPIP Meeting 95.

We were hoping to have the PR to EIP-1 coming in by RIP working group. But, it can be made by anyone.

@poojaranjan poojaranjan mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2024
Closed
21 tasks
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 3, 2024

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 May 3, 2024
@HoangTranMap
Copy link

HoangTranMap commented May 3, 2024 via email

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the w-stale Waiting on activity label May 4, 2024
@github-actions 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 May 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@poojaranjan poojaranjan poojaranjan left review comments

@ulerdogan ulerdogan ulerdogan approved these changes

@eth-bot eth-bot eth-bot left review comments

At least 0 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
a-review Waiting on author to review c-status Changes a proposal's status e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus w-stale Waiting on activity
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@CarlBeek @eth-bot @poojaranjan @ulerdogan @HoangTranMap