Update EIP-1: Clear rules regarding EIP numbering #6976
Conversation
File
|
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Outdated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. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"draft" EIP numbers
Non-numeric EIP/ERC numbers are harder to succinctly refer to. e.g. in core devs discussions, or in newsletters
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately they tend to.
|
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. |
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.
That is part of the motivation to make drafts even draftier.
There would be no number change. You'd go from |
|
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 |
Long draft names will be a challenge for those referring to them. Especially when titles change. How does this scheme work with auto-assigned EIP numbers? |
|
i also prefer referring to draft EIPs with a prefix instead of long draft names |
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. |
That's what the
That's what eip-review-bot is going to do once some of the issues are sorted out. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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. | |||
|
Uploading @@VID_20240618_183251.mp4…7 |
* 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
This also paves the way for "draft" EIP numbers being officially used.