EIP Editing Office Hour #117 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

[music] Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Thank you.

Heat. [music] Heat. >> Hello.

>> Heat. Heat. in progress.

Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 117. This is added on Ethereum/PM repo at uh with the issue number 2278. Today we are joined by editor Sam Wilson and on agenda we have quite a few item. Um we will keep this session open for any question and answer. So if if anyone on the call has any question please drop it in the chat. We have some ACD related PRs that we can take a look at. And um we are also joined by a few authors. So maybe we can go ahead and take a look at their proposals. So um Sam over to you.

>> Sure. Are we starting with the uh ACD related or are we starting with review Q here? >> Okay. So um we are joined by David Haye who has five proposals moving towards final. If you want to quickly take a look at them. Yes. >> Hey Sam. How's it going? >> Good. Thank you. So, all five uh were moved a couple of weeks ago to last call and there have been no discussions. No, well, there been discussions on Ethereum magicians. One of them, but 8330, which is not included here,

um requires a change. So, we're going to do that one separately and move that back to review. Update >> it. But there was nothing blocking coming out of the the other one. So Sam, is that typical to include a

reference implementation in the assets directory? >> Yep, that's the that's the normal way to do it. >> Is it okay? And just to be clear on the test cases

comment is that to because I believe the test cases are mainly around in the reference implementation. You can link to them from there. Then you can just say like uh you just pick a link in this section to wherever they're defined in your reference implementation as long as it's in your your assets directory. >> Okay, cool. >> Awesome. Um just to mention Sam if uh

if uh it is okay to sorry first let me check it with David. David if you have any particular question about any any of these uh PRs you can please share that and Sam if it is very long because these are final proposals uh then we can perhaps take it async as well >> perfect >> unless question yeah >> yeah this is the first time we're moving it to final so it was more a watching and understanding what that process is and what necessitates moving event to review before [clears throat] um or what can >> go forward again. Yeah.

>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, normally um going to final doesn't usually have this many comments. I think just uh some of these were missed in earlier reviews. So, um this this wouldn't be the usual um process, >> right? Okay.

Okay. So, I'll just uh leave this here for now and we can move on to um >> the next one. >> Where? Yeah. Where are we going to next? Puja. Um so we have a stagnant bot request related request which I believe you have already reviewed it in the past and cyber centry is there. He made some changes and he has to add something around the previous bot cyber centry please. Yeah, Sam, this is I think you you might recall you created a PR um 986 long back. It it merged but it errored.

Um I looked into why it had errored created this pull request. Yokam last week ran through it outside of office hours. He uh he added some comments which I've completed and I believe that this one now just needs a second review. Um but yeah, it' be good to see if there's anything else that you can >> see here. A quick question sentry. So the one that was already merged, the previous one, would it not solve the the action that it was expected with 1952? Amen.

Yeah. So it um it it was Sam created it with the LLM I believe. I may be wrong there. JKUM was the second reviewer. It merged but then when it was running there was an error. So I identified the error saw why it had errored and then implemented the changes in this PR 1952. JK looked at it last week, saw some bits that he wanted to add. I've added those and that's where we are now. Yeah, it would have been great if that original one had merged and it hadn't have errored, but I was sat there waiting on the Sunday to see what was made

stagnant, but nothing nothing ran at the time. Okay. [clears throat]

I don't know if this would require uh testing at some And yeah, my my thought just then is that would it be an idea to I think it was around 245 that should be stagnant at the moment.

I'm just wondering whether that can be conducted manually to bring it back to zero outstanding and then to do the testing on the next one that is due to go stagnant. Let's say rather than this being merged it potentially running and then over the weeks running through 245 different ERC's just a thought. Yeah, that makes sense. So this is the the GitHub here is

injected by the workflow I guess uh like you don't import it directly. >> Sorry Sam could you um repeat that please? Yeah. Where? Oh, sorry. GitHub comes in as a parameter here. Where does that come? So, GitHub is provided by something somewhere down here. Yeah. Okay. So, I guess the runtime provides GitHub as an argument. All right.

Is that like the Octokit uh type? >> I'd have to check that one. Um >> yeah, >> I think once you drop these these ones, I'll um >> I'll spend some time on each one. >> Sure. Um the [clears throat] reason why I ask is in the other script I've written in JavaScript for GitHub, there was a nice layer you could add for handling um uh rate limits. Um it was just like a a little plugin. Um, if you can use the same one that that's nice. If not, then this is fine.

>> Yeah, I'm just wondering I read somewhere that it's that this also isn't running in the EIP repo. Is that right? Because I'm just wondering >> probably. Okay, how does this work? So, I hate not being an admin anymore. I

can't actually see these things. I'm pretty sure it has some branch protection. So I don't think this comment is correct. Yeah, there are checks on master. It's

right there. Interesting. Yeah, this looks good. I think just uh

me being picky. Um [snorts] >> there we go. >> So I believe there is a question on uh being a champion for the proposal. Um Sentry, if you can maybe relay the question maybe some be Yes. So this is not on this PR is relevant to the work that we've conducted on 8126 and 8196. And you might recall that 8126 went through the checkers with

8004 as a draft. We know that after um six months of no activity that ERC would have been stagnant had the stagnant B have been running >> and the question is because we want to assist in getting 804 through to final what the process would be to look at champion that ERC See, we've reached out to the team over the last six months. Um, we've been able to contact one of the authors, Eric, um, who's contempt for the support,

which is to get the official process on that um, on that being conducted. >> Okay. So, uh, so if I understand it correctly, something went through to final. referring to this in draft and we need to get this to final quickly. >> Yeah. Okay. Um I mean the >> Yeah. Sorry, I'm mute first. >> Oh, I was just going to say I think the um Oh, there's a bug here.

There should be a link. Um anyways, um so I think uh the easiest thing to do would just be to get the champion um in air quotes added as an author and then they can go through the process of moving it to final. Um I don't know if that answers your question. So it's as straightforward as that. A >> pretty much yeah >> pull request of the current um status as it is now and adding the champion to the list that we can see there on the the authors to then get the access to them to um continue through the process. I've

seen your Am I right in saying that you actually did some work on this back in January? It was a list of changes. Um I've got the the commit reference here. Did you actually complete these? I believe that they have been completed because it went from review back to draft due to your findings. But I think that they've been completed. I'll just drop in the commit reference so you can see that.

>> Sure. Thank you. I have not been thinking about this very much for a very long time. So, let me So, that's AC. Yeah, [sighs] >> that's some Yeah. >> Ah, yeah. Okay. I remember. I think I remember this. >> So, I I believe that they've been committed and merged >> fixed. Yeah. Okay.

But yeah, then the one above it was the last the last one in January. And as we know, you know, six months from that point, in theory, it would have been stagnant now. Okay. So, if we go back to here and then Yeah. So the co my comments are the ones that are here in um in HTML style comments.

>> Yeah, got it. Yeah. >> Um so and they're still here. So they'll need to be resolved. >> Yeah. Brilliant. Thank you, Sam, for confirming that. >> No, no worries. What I'll do is I'll I'll speak to Chris Chris Johnson who's the co-author of um 8126 8196 with myself and um and we'll look to we'll look to do that and um to move that forward. >> Sounds good. Yeah, >> thank you Sam.

>> All right. Uh maybe we can take couple of more that those are quick. So Sam there is a PR on EIP depot 12491 uh that is with respect to Glamsterdam small spec change. I believe it is already being approved by one of the dabs. Yes. Okay. I will merge this once it's agreed

on in ACDT. Okay. So, I'm going to assume that this is okay. >> And another smaller one is PR number

12149. It is basically updating contributing MD. It has received one approval. It's coming back from August EAPAP meeting. Yeah, that's much better. Yeah, that

looks great. Uh quickly checking is that for the

discretionary merge policy for >> yeah I think it was from EIPAP meeting. >> Um >> okay >> yeah I can add the reference or we can bring it up tomorrow to finalize that. >> Sure. Like I don't really care too much. It's just I prefer just fixing typos. I don't want to have to wait for authors or anything. Um I think that's I think it's much easier if we just follow that policy instead. But yeah. >> Um cool. Anything else quick that we can get to today or >> um [clears throat] No, I think there is more moving into last call. It might require a thorough review. So I think we are good for a quick one today.

>> Awesome. Well, thanks for putting this together and uh >> Sam, I just put a note in the chat with a link. Do you mind just checking that real quick if you have a second? This is just whether the test what you >> Yep, that did. That looks good. >> That looks better. Okay, cool. Um, so the other ones you'll just review asynchronously. >> I'm not going to make any promises for the next little while. Um, but hopefully somebody will get to them eventually. Um, yeah. Cool. Thank everybody. Thanks. >> Thank you, Sam. Thank you for joining us today. And people we will be taking a break maybe a couple of weeks we may not have the office hours because we are having Devcon event and people will be meeting there in person but please uh uh

keep looking at the Ethereum/PM repo and EC discord as soon as we have an editor available we will definitely going to put on an agenda. In the meantime we hope editors take a look at all the open PRs asynchronously. Thank you everyone for joining us today. >> Thank you. [music]

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

>> Heat up here. >> What's up?

Thanks. >> Heat.

Heat up here. Thank you.

Heat. Heat. [music] Oh,

heat, heat. up [music]