EIP Editing Office Hour #58 (EIP Only)

Transcript

[Music] I don't want to be the [Music] Heat.

[Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.

[Music] to EIP editing office hour meeting number 58. This is EIP only meeting.

That means we are going to consider pull requests which are added to EIP GitHub repositories. This is issue number 1476 on Ethereum PM and uh I'm happy to welcome Gajjender Singh who is the editor for reviewing the proposals today. Welcome Gajjender. if you would like to share your screen and we can go over the pull request. Thank you, Puja. Let me set it up. Is it coming through?

Yes. All right. Uh so we can take a look at uh these proposals one by one. Sure. Yeah. We can start with miscellaneous. Perfect. The reason why I have added this one, it seems to me like an act of a bot considered a lot of open peers um for u editing smaller changes and some of those are on stagnant status. So perhaps we may not approve the stagnant one but yeah it's a good idea to take a look.

when uh would should these PRs be first approved by the authors of this EIP and yes they are uh sort of bundled maybe uh just uh in order to respond to whoever has authored this PR we can write it down that it is a good idea to have individual PR for each of the proposals so you can get approval by the authors. If that's a human, perhaps that individual will u make some action and have different PRs. It will be easier for us to close one by one rather than all of them in a bunch because we may not be getting approval for all the

authors and at once Uh so I see that authors of these PRs

have reviewed it but uh there still seems to be some pending issue that needs to be resolved but even [Music] And yeah, it's better that these would have been independent PRs, but I think um I I think we recently received a comment here by Danos saying looks good to me and I I believe Dano is leading the EUF proposal. So anything in in specific that we are waiting for?

So I'm not sure I mean so Alex has also sort of reviewed these PRs and uh this comment is basically saying waiting to resolve one last issue. Yeah, sounds good to me. But even then it does not require editors uh approval because if you look at uh the reviewers these seems to be all authors of this PR and one of them. Yeah. Yeah. I think if Alex uh will approve the PR all will get approved or it will require approval from at least uh authors from each of

these PR. Yeah. Yep. That makes sense. I think this is another stagnant proposal PR number 9210 where Micah has already suggested that it's a withdrawn EIP and should not

accept any more changes which I also support because withdrawn is a terminal status and once a proposal reaches withdrawn there is no point of like improving it because it can never go back to regular stages or statuses of EIP. Yeah, I mean but it is just a type of X. I'm not sure what is the right. We can perhaps ignore that because you know there is no one looking into this uh stat withdrawn proposal for the reason withdrawn can never be revived. If anyone is interested in this particular proposal and want to pursue the general recommendation is that you come up with a new PR with a new EIP number and

whenever you are making that new PR you can perhaps make all the type of fixes there unless you have intention of like pursuing that proposal um making all PRs to withdrawn status does not add value that's my opinion as well so what does ignore here means close the PR Yes, that should be the uh ideal way because it does not make sense to improve it. Neither he is an author nor uh he wants to pursue the proposal. We can just mention it like okay if you want to pursue the proposal please go ahead and create a new EIP otherwise we can close the PR It seems Micah is the author for that

proposal as well. That's why he recommended it. So this is also a drawn EIP.

Yeah, perhaps we should uh provide some guidelines to whoever wants to make a pull request to the these repositories given that many people try to make it for farming purposes. Um, we should have some guidelines that unless this is a value adding PR, please do not increase the number of pull requests. No, I'm I'm sorry that can be too harsh on people, but I think it will make sense to merge PRs only when um it has real meaning and it is actually adding value.

Yeah, makes sense. I understand the value in an active EIP if someone is trying to make typo fixes for draft or any other statuses but final order withdrawn. It definitely makes sense even for final because that that's the pristine status we want to maintain. It does make sense to me.

This is again withdrawn. I noticed the number has significantly increased. Uh the number of open PRs and I believe withdrawn EIP type of fixes may have contributed decently in that. I'm not sure if we are ever going to

consider EIP 2315 and it is already in withdrawn status. Yeah, but uh why is it showing up twice? I mean, I already reviewed this PR. Oh, that is my bad. You are right there. I think I have by mistakenly added it twice.

Yeah, I already reviewed it and I think uh this is still a draft in progress and uh most probably light client is working on it. Sounds good. Yeah. Yeah, a general recommendation to author whose proposals are not ready for review, they can perhaps keep it in draft PR rather than just draft. So there are still comments that have

not been addressed. I notice a and I read few more comments. Uhhuh. Yeah. Thank you for reviewing these proposals before the meeting. It is super helpful. So added some new comments. Uh because

for example um this section is more about motivation and less about security. That makes sense. and edit some editing comments. So we'll come back to this. So once author has reviewed the comments and address them. Mhm. Not sure why GitHub is not responding.

Looks like we lost him. Maybe some internet connection issue. Yeah, apologies for disconnection. No worries. Good to see you back. Yes, we can see your screen now.

So, addit some editing commands over this EIP. So, we'll get back to it uh when author will address these commands. Puja, is my screen still coming through

or is it disconnected? Uh, it is, but we can still see the agenda, not the PR. Yes. So I have also reviewed algorithm algorithmic transaction wrapper EIP and uh uh have added uh some editing commands over there. So again we'll wait for author review and address them uh as well as also reviewed the s delegate op

code. Okay, GitHub seems to be working again. Yeah. I guess uh yeah, I have already reviewed that. So maybe we can take a look at it uh next time when author uh comes back on. It seems like my internet connection is not stable today.

No worries. Uh good that we have already covered whatever has been added to agenda. uh I would love to invite any other developers uh to maybe add their pull request to agenda if they want it to be reviewed like if there is any issue making that PR move forward or if they don't understand anything that has been already recommended otherwise uh it's good uh because we are also doing this editing office hour every week so we expect you know less um issues to be added here well thank you so much for your time and consideration Gajenda Singh and we look forward to the next EAP editing office hour. The next meeting is on April 29th at 1600 UTC. It

will be for both EIP and ERC GitHub repository with Sam Wilson. Thank you everyone for joining us here today. [Music] Beat Heat. Heat.

[Music] N. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. N.

[Music] [Music]

Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hold [Music] on. Heat. Heat. [Music]