EIP Editing Office Hour #69 (EIP Only)

Transcript

[Music] Okay. What's up?

Thank you. Heat. Heat. Heat

up here. up here. Heat.

Recording in progress. >> Welcome to EIP editing office hour. This is meeting number 69 and is added on Ethereum/PM repo as issue number 1693. Today this is EIP only office hour. So we are going to reviews proposals or PRs added to Ethereum GitHub for EIP only. We are joined by editor Gajender Singh and yeah Gajjender you are already sharing your screen. Thank you for that.

Thank you for joining. We can perhaps proceed with miscellaneous. >> All right. Thanks uh for setting this up and yeah, let's start reviewing the PRs. I think we should basically take like client's input on this because it's his PR whether he's working on it or he intends to let it go stagnant.

>> That sounds good. Yeah. Do we want to have him tagged for a respon response? I think he's already added by bot. >> Correct. >> Okay, cool. I'm good with this. And uh then this

will need a second uh review from Sam I guess. >> Yeah, set uh two editors review is required. So cool. I will bring it to the next meeting with Sam. I saw this uh PR before as well and uh I was like okay

you know do we want this functionality where people can toggle because right now I think what's we have added is that So the theme will be automatically adopted by whatever your browser theme is. But in any case, this looks like a more involved PR. And I would first let Sam take a crack at this and see whether this works. >> Do we want to bring it for EIP editors meeting tomorrow like EIP? Maybe we can thoughts from all editors in one go.

Yeah, I guess I mean uh point is that we would want to support the functionality that actually helps people rather than just for the sake of it because as more and more code gets added tech debt also increases. >> That makes sense. Hello.

This is just a typo correction pers but might need force merge because author might not respond. >> Yeah, right. I will add it for Sam's to-do. The next one is also a type of X, but it seems like this is from the latest proposal.

Which one is uh 1088? >> Yeah. Yeah, this should not require any of our

intervention this particular PR but uh I closed and reopened it again so that maybe this time the module happens. So we'll see. >> Sure. Sure. Uh >> yeah. Uh we will hope that it merges. If not then we'll bring it back again. We are joined by an author and he has a request for PR1092 which is a draft proposal.

Uh do we have Okay, we have this over here. So we come to >> Okay. Yeah, we can come there shortly. Yes, perfect. >> We can let's review it, I guess. Um by the you've already reviewed it. >> Okay. So everything that was flagged is taken care of. Yes. Uh I believe so. I mean there is this issue with the bots. Um but it's not a it shouldn't be a blocker.

>> No board is a blocker. We can't merge without uh it pass the boards passing all the checks. >> No, but the the the thing is this has a link to an ERC post split. Um, and that's not working. That's why I opened a separate PR that I can link uh that fixes that in the CI. Um, so I don't know if if you want to review the the other one, but I understand you pinged Sam to look at it.

>> This is if this is an ERC, you can create a full link for it. >> Is that what I should do? I mean as of now I think you also did a PR to sort of merge the CIS I guess merge the repos so that uh this is taken care of but we will sort of need Sam to review it first. >> Yes we um will a full link even pass the the the bot >> go again. Will the full link be accepted by the bot?

>> Yes. Yes, it should be accepted most likely because uh uh self links to EIP and ERC's should be accepted. So in that >> okay give me five minutes and let's try that. Um >> yeah sure >> otherwise I I don't know if we will consider merging this with the blog. The thing is I I need to propose this for um Glamsterdam and this has been a blocker and I don't know I haven't seen >> you already have an EIP number so you can still propose it I guess.

>> Well this needs to be added to the meta EIP and that won't work until this is merged. So give me sorry give me five minutes and I'll try to >> if that doesn't work what you can do is just mention the EIP number and not try to link it maybe you know >> yeah I know that doesn't work what what can be done is to put it in back tick um which is an ugly workar Sure. Maybe we can proceed and Frio you can work in the background. Let us know if it is still not working for you.

>> Yeah. Coming back to our original pipeline. I think uh this is pending review of the authors. Seems like a technical change. Mhm. Yeah, this is pending for Tim's review.

I notice there are a bunch of 73 and I think all are pending on author's review. So, we can skip that. Yeah. So this is I think uh my EIP so it should all be good.

>> Oh it will serve both like authors and reviewers. >> Yeah. Yeah. So it only needed my approval. >> Okay. Perfect. Um, yeah. So, the uh full link URL

doesn't work. >> Okay, we'll come to that. So I have made some comments for this

new EIP. I hope author will address them and then we can come back to it again. >> Sounds good. I have just removed the link the reference. Uh it should should work now. Got it. Let's look at Yeah, I think this was a particular

error. Did you resolve this error? >> Yes. So, this was just an attempt to get it to work. This didn't work. I've just removed the ERC reference. >> No, I mean uh but you could just refer it at ERC7955. >> No, it's not possible. None of this works. The only thing that works is to remove the preference. It's fine. I will add it back later when the uh CI fix is is merged. It's it's okay. It doesn't need to be referred. >> But the full link should work and I want to see that. >> Sorry, but it doesn't work. I've already tried it. I I've already tried everything and it doesn't work.

>> Okay. Use absolute link. it it'll try to check if it exists and it won't find it >> here in the link if I may suggest on row number 10 when we are referring to ERC7955 instead of using the link here um as EIP/ EIP7955 maybe we can try adding from ERC ERC 7955.

>> No, that doesn't work either. I've I've already tried everything. It's the the bot is broken. >> Um the only thing that will fix is is my my my other PR, >> but um it's fine. Uh the the latest commit should should pass. It's it's still running the HTML proofer, but it's okay. I'll add I'll add the reference back in a future PR once the bot is fixed. >> Sure. uh we will take care of the PR number 10140 that is helping to fix this part >> and maybe we should uh create this issue that uh absolute link is also not working.

>> Yes, we will bring it. >> Thank you Fru for bringing it to our attention. Thank you. >> No, no worries. Thank you. >> So, I'll just do a sanity check and approve it because I see light client has already sort of reviewed the PR. >> Mhm.

>> I need to do something. I'll be back in 2 minutes. Francisco, are you still there?

>> Yes, I just replied to your comment. Um I I think it's it is common knowledge. >> I know it mentioned in many EIPs Okay, thank you guys.

>> Thank you. uh so this uh EIP is pending change by

the author to rename the EIP as well as the file. >> Could we not do it like as an editor? uh don't they have permission? Is it only about the EB number? >> I mean it's better that they do it rather than us doing their work. >> Yeah. And I don't know if they have enabled the permission for the editor to force merge it or not. Yeah, that's all right.

I mean it's also a sign that the author is active right? Uh >> yeah I mean this is a new proposal because I don't know how much uh familiar he or she is with the process. So that's all right. We can wait for another week for the author to come back. >> We have to follow >> the comments and all that from GitHub. Right. >> Right. So we have a blocker issue with this

particular EIP draft. And once the author resolves it and adds the marker, we will then take the uh we will then re take the reviewing forward. Cool. Yeah, I think this is a technical change. Uh, so author will need to review and merge the VR.

I think this is the redundant link. We have already reviewed this >> and I think we are done for PRs listed >> Yep. >> Cool. So I have noticed that there are too many open PRs 220 plus open PRs but most of them are either typoix or pending on editors sorry pending on author's um review or confirmation for the change. So I think this is the list that an editor can review given the circumstances. So maybe we can get back and we hope that rest of the PRs be reviewed or confirmed by the

author then only we'll be in a position to merge that. Oh I'm looking at a stats on okay let me share the link right here. I'm looking at the stats of uh number of PRs spending on author's review is 132 for reviewer it's like 20 26 and others are 59 so yeah there are over 100 PRs which are pending author review well that brings us to the end of the call today uh people following us on live stream or maybe recording may join

us tomorrow at 1400 UTC for EIP IP meeting and we will bring the next EIP editing office hour on following Tuesday at 1600 UTC. Thank you everyone for joining us here. [Applause]