EIP Editing Office Hour #81 (EIP Only)

Transcript

Loading developers...

[music] What's up? >> [music] >> Thank you. [music] >> Heat. Heat.

>> Recording in progress. Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 81. This is added on Ethereum/PM GitHub repository with issue number 1831. This is EIP only meeting. So we are going to take a look at the pull requests which are added to EIP's GitHub repositories only. We are joined by EIP editor Gajjender Singh and on agenda we have added a few draft and miscellaneous uh PRs for review.

EIP Editing Office Hour Introduction

Um Gajender Singh thank you so much for joining us here and we can perhaps go ahead and get started although I I think I noticed some of the PRs are already reviewed just prior to this meeting. So whatever is pending we can uh get into that. Yeah, thanks Puja. And yeah, let's get started. In this PR I added a to-do uh I did a

command basically to add a to-do marker because seems like uh the guest jump that has been proposed is not a final value. So if they add this marker then this EIP can be merged. All right. Well, this uh EIP mess protocol. So I will need to

uh dig a little bit deeper into it because from the last conversation seems like uh author has addressed that they intended to be EIP but because earlier it seemed like uh it belonged as an RIP. So we can take a quick look. >> That's pretty interesting. So this is the exactly same or we are expecting some changes with respect to uh protocol implementation.

Yeah, we'll find out maybe. >> Yeah. So I haven't seen the RIP but uh uh yeah I think I should also check it out what the RIP is. >> Yep. Sure. Yeah, so proposal looks fine. Uh but

I'll just add a comment that I will check against RAB and see if this is needed as separate EIB or not. >> Um I'm sorry. I think I missed something. Why we do not need it as a separate EIP? It's a good idea, right? If this is aiming to be a part of upgrade one day, right? >> Yeah. I mean, if it's something that needs to to be implemented by L1, then it belongs over here.

>> Yes. Yes, that's the idea because uh we generally do not consider RIP for upgrade. So it has to be in standard track score to be considered for an upgrade. It does seem like uh an envelope.

I just hope they have not mentioned the RIP number in the proposal anywhere unless that RIP is already in the final status because that could be a blocker at some point if the RIP is not in the final status. Yes. >> Okay. I mean basically we I will ask the author to share the RA link and go through it. >> Sounds good. Okay. So I I think there has been no

activity on this particular EIP. Oh, there has been. Okay. Yeah, we didn't get to address it in the last meeting. So added it here again but there are still unressed issues. I I don't know why author is paying no heat to these comments.

>> Yeah, I I read your message in there. I don't know if this can be added as a draft just yet and maybe and maybe um [sighs] okay I'm getting messages from authors who wants to join the call maybe I can share the link with them individually but yes um maybe we can add it as a draft and we wait for this proposal to move forward with sufficient details or unless you are like satisfied that this is not draft worthy.

I mean I don't understand why the author is not addressing the comments that have been put on it and sort of you know taking in the proposal as draft will basically go against uh our process. >> Mhm. And yeah, so if the author really wants this to be an EIP and champion, it's they should actually get the EIP in order is my opinion. >> That's right. Yeah. Maybe we can just leave another reminder address open comments and then we can consider for reviewing.

Discussion on Blobs Related Proposals

We should now be looking at some more blob related proposals. >> Yep. Thanks to Fuzzaga. >> And today was BPO1. That was also good. Yeah. BP1 should have been Yeah. It has been a smooth sailing anyway. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Because it's already programmed into clients. So if they went through Fazaka, uh BPU1 should just be simple.

>> Yeah. So far, so far all good news, no problem discussed in the group. So seems it went well. We'll get to know more about it on Thursday's call. >> Super good. So we are done with the new EIP uh to draft and now we can start looking at the miscellaneous. So the first one is something I think uh Sam will need to force merge or approve it.

>> I'm wondering if that can be done by just closing and opening the PR. >> No, this needs one more uh approval. >> Does it need two or three? Because I believe light client has already like done it. Okay, we need one more approval. Okay, cool. Cool. I thought that light line has already done it. So maybe adding your approval would work. >> I think uh like client's approval will it didn't even prompt for his approval because he did the PR.

>> Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I mean all of them are [clears throat] miscellaneous proposals which may require some small small fixes. I'm happy to move it to EIP meeting if any of these requires more um like discussion and things like that. All right. Uh regarding this particular PR, I think uh it looks fine but it is a bit of technical change in terms of wordings. So it would be better the

author actually approves it and I think the author is pedallic. >> That's good. Okay, we can skip that. Um so most of the agenda items listed here are taken from the EIP board from EIP inside and we have collected all the like long waiting things here. I wonder if we have any any suggestion on like excluding these proposals if if if there is anything that can be done. I know there was a bot which is currently not functioning. The bot was supposed to tag

if it requires author's attention or if it requires editor's intent uh attention. Um but that is not working as expected. If there are any other suggestions perhaps we can uh update the rules for EIP inside to list them here. Yeah, I think uh one of the rules is that uh so asset change in the EIPs they are just being flagged to uh the editors. They are not being flagged to the EIP authors and that is something that needs to be done.

>> Okay. Okay. Sam has already approved the CIP. So I will also prove it. curious about these website fixes. Would

Website Fixes and Approval Process

it be merged after two editors approval or does it require additional steps? >> So I'm not sure what the CI design is uh but I think uh these seems to be directly the file uh changes in the file. So these uh so it required to author's approval and uh it should automatically uh update the rendering of the website.

>> I would hope so because I'm not sure if a website also requires two editors approval. It should not be that way only EIP1. No, generally all the website fixes come for two editor approval. >> So I generally basically see a lot of such PRs. >> Mhm. >> But mostly Sam is taking call on that. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I noticed a bunch of website related PS. I think I have listed it like on um below the list here.

Yeah, I mean similarly for example this also seems like a website uh config already approved this uh

PR4 type of fix and one more approval is required. Great. this PR10774 uh I already approved it. I think author or Sam can force merge it because it seems to be the correct uh fix on the bite code that is being used in the example.

I think we need more editors to have this power of force merge. That way we would be able to like resolve or maybe close most of the PRs or merge. Yeah. Whatever works. >> Yeah. Quite I see quite a good number of PRs that that can just be closed with the force merge and uh >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Maybe we'll bring this uh item in EIP meeting to have uh more editors get this permission to force much peers.

Technical Changes and Force Merge Discussion

So it seems like a technical change uh in the code and even though the PR is correct, it's best that the author should sort of validate it because there are two possible fixes for this uh particular uh issue that has been brought up. It would be better if both of us take a call on this, >> right? Yeah. I think I already approved it. So, it might just need a force merge.

>> So many candidates for force merge. PR seems to be varied but I will leave

it to Sam. Take a call on this if we can have some. Yeah, perhaps we will have some before the EIP meeting. Otherwise, I can move all these PRs there. But I believe there will be one more meeting, one more office hour before the IPAP meeting I think Sam would be the best judge of

this. Yeah, I will try to include some of them in the next week's agenda. I have already reviewed this PR before

so changes seem to be fine but uh yeah final call I guess it's Sam's >> yeah we have received multiple PRs related to website >> it's actually a good thing that people are trying to improve the experience. >> Yes. Yeah. We don't have these templates anymore,

Jackal. I'm not sure if we are we are still using that. Yeah, that may be the reason. Yeah, I think he uh Sam has updated the

issue templates and still is not there. But yeah, it's a good idea to leave it on him. Yeah, I think I have approved this and might need a force merge. This seems to have merged. The link seems to be working.

I don't know if we still use Okay. [laughter] So, Quill test repository I believe it was from the consensus site, right? I don't know if there is again still quill team working and they are maintaining the repository but uh regardless of that if the link is working there is no need of this PR. >> Yep.

I mean that is the comment from one of the authors I think. Uh >> I have >> yeah I don't know because the author himself is suggesting that he's not interested in updating this one or maybe merging this PR. Yeah. So I'm not sure because earlier also you know we had a PR in which links were proposed to be updated and then we have we had a call uh call for request uh >> issue in which it was not favored for links to be updated. So I guess the same

thing will apply over here. >> Yeah. Call for input we can create for this one as well. I mean we already had the call for input for that. I'm not sure whether we should create a new one or not because in that call for input it was decided that we will not update the links. already approved this PR 10972.

So it might require force match. I love the EAP number.

[snorts] Yeah. Oh, this is ERC

H new D5 standard. Yes, we can remove it from here. My bad. Let me quickly take a look. I I think by mistake I may have added Yeah, I think this is the only one because it mentioned EIP777. Cool. So, there are a couple of more which I don't know either may not be may not longer needed or spam that can be removed.

Yeah, these two I think uh Sam is the better person to take a call on this.

Okay, then I will include it in the either in next editing office hour or um the EIP one. Yeah, package bump as well. I will leave And that's pretty much it. And we are almost about time.

>> Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Gajender Singh. I'm just quickly taking a look at chart. So it seems there is one more 8888 coming up. >> Who gets it? All right. Thank you so much uh Gajendra Singh for helping us navigate all these PRs. We know that we are close to 300 open PRs but as I understand there are some PRs which requires author's attention. In fact a lot of them requires author's attention. Um but we are trying to filter out which requires editor attention and try to navigate it faster. The next week uh in editing office hour we will be reviewing proposals on both end EIP and ERC. So

people if you are listening to this call please join us and also drop your PR link to the agenda. I think that would be the last one. Let me quickly take a look. That would be the last office hour for the year unless we have one more unless we get any more editors to uh pick up the the following week. Yeah. Well, thank you everyone for joining us here today. Have a great rest of the day. >> I feel [music]

Closing Remarks and Farewell

Heat. Heat >> up here. [music] >> Heat.

>> Hello. Heat. Heat.