-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
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
Add EIP-5976: Handbook for EIP Authors #5976
Conversation
Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s): (fail) .github/workflows/ci.yml
(pass) eip-5976.md
|
This is already in the EIP template? |
This PR is not ready to review. My intentions is to create an informational EIP not a template. I will flip to ready for review when ready. |
It would be better to only open the PR / draft once there is actually some content or explanation. |
Sounds good. Closing for now. Will reopen when ready |
@lightclient I drafted the main piece and reopen this pull request. The motivation was that I got some good advice from you on #5875, and I want to write it down to help myself to think when authoring new opcode proposals. But in the meanwhile I realize we can use this as a handbook for other suggestions for new authors. Hence this informational EIP. Some of the suggestions in this draft EIP are solely my personal opinion and might be wrong. Corrections and advices are greatly welcomed! |
EIPS/eip-5976.md
Outdated
## Security Considerations | ||
|
||
No security issues introduced. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can be omitted for informational EIPs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tried, EIPW wouldnt let me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can be overwritten.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we remove that from EIPW side?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it should. CC @SamWilsn.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated to remove Security Considerations
Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>
EIPS/eip-5976.md
Outdated
## Rationale | ||
|
||
Help authors better streamline the authoring and reduce review round-trip time. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can also be omitted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is legit rationale and I lean towards keeping the Rationele unless you are against...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am against including a rationale for this EIP, as:
- This is actually motivation, not Rationale
- The "design decisions" made in this EIP are exceptionally obvious and well-documented in EIP-1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it. Removed, respect your opposition.
Pinging @SamWilsn for updating EIPW to exempt "Informational" track from mandating "Rationale " and "Security Considerations"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Partial review so far:
Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ | |||
--- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rationale and Security Considerations were suggested to be removed by Editor as deemed not applicable to this type of EIP. This will need a manual merge
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You should add this to:
Line 119 in cf35f4c
unchecked: 1, 5069, 5757 |
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. |
Still WIP |
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. |
When opening a pull request to submit a new EIP, please use the suggested template: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-template.md
We have a GitHub bot that automatically merges some PRs. It will merge yours immediately if certain criteria are met: