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

add discussions-to link to SNIP-2 #35

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from
Closed

add discussions-to link to SNIP-2 #35

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

moodysalem
Copy link
Contributor

#34

AbdelStark
AbdelStark previously approved these changes Aug 4, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@AbdelStark AbdelStark left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@AbdelStark AbdelStark dismissed their stale review August 4, 2023 15:38

discussion pending

@lambda-0x
Copy link
Contributor

lambda-0x commented Sep 1, 2023 •
edited

wouldn't it be better to number SNIPs that are inspired by ERC's to have same number or prefix the number by something, for example SNIP-E20?

This would make this simpler for developers as they have 1 less number to remember.

@AbdelStark
Copy link
Collaborator

wouldn't it be better to number SNIPs that are inspired by ERC's to have same number or prefix the number by something, for example SNIP-E20?

This would make this simpler for developers as they have 1 less number to remember.

good question, we had this discussion before but eventually we decided to go with our own independent identification of SNIPs

@lambda-0x
Copy link
Contributor

hmm, what was the reason behind going with independent identification? I don't think we loose anything by adding a namespace for SNIPs directly inspired from EIPs. And we gain good DX

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 9, 2023

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request recently, and in order to prioritize active work, it has been marked as stale.
This PR will be closed and locked in 7 days if no further activity occurs.
Thank you for your contributions!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Nov 9, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Nov 16, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 17, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@AbdelStark AbdelStark AbdelStark left review comments

@ArielElp ArielElp Awaiting requested review from ArielElp ArielElp is a code owner

@bbrandtom bbrandtom Awaiting requested review from bbrandtom bbrandtom is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
stale
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@moodysalem @lambda-0x @AbdelStark @gaetbout