EIP Editing Office Hour #55 (EIP Only)

Transcript

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

[Music] [Music] Heat.

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

Yeah, moving on. [Music] in progress. Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 55. This is uh issue number 143 on Ethereum/PM GitHub repository. This meeting is for EIPs only and we are joined by editor Gajender Singh who would be now reviewing the

proposals. Thank you for joining us Gajender. If you would like to share your screen and we can perhaps start with some of the proposals which are added to the agenda. Yeah, thank you Puja. Uh let me just set up. Yeah, I'm very happy to see some of the proposals are already merged. You took time to review it before the meeting. So that's great of and uh yeah for for new people if you aren't aware this is EIP only meeting you are welcome to drop your pull request link to the agenda.

Yeah, GitHub isn't responding for me. Uh is it opening at your end? Uh yes I think I am able to yes look into the PRs. It's all right if you would like to take a moment and restart and join back. Yeah it's opening. So let me share the screen.

going through the motions of screen sharing on Linux. Yeah, no problem. Is it coming through? It is. Yes.

Uh, all right. Looking at the EIP for stagnant proposals. It seems like we have received this new PR for some small fixes for the proposals which are already in stment status but I don't know if it's all reviewers have approved so yeah yeah maybe it is now relevant because I know EF team is working for proposals for Fusaka so yeah no I mean Uh it says all reviewers have

approved. So it's stuck somewhere else. Could we just try uh like closing and opening the PR? Sometimes that helps Maybe we can leave it and come back to it after some time when bots finishes it check and if you want we can proceed with the next one. Sounds good.

I think I don't have permissions to force merge this because uh the CI is not passing. Okay, in that case I will move PR number 9430 for the next EIP editing office hour. Hopefully Sam has the permission and we'll look into it. Yeah. Uh this is my EIP. I have to work on this. So I'll just ignore that. Yes, of course. And I will mark that for the next meeting as well. So I added a comment for this over here.

Uh I'll wait for author's uh uh address of this comment. So there is some editing comments that

have been left and uh uh I'll wait for the author to address them and come back on it. Awesome. So this in my ERC and I left the comment again uh basically explaining the author why how basically he uh he thinks that uh this should be served by L or CL clients

because unless uh this is something that we need to serve through clients or implement in protocol it's not an IP and uh it can easily there can easily be a smart contract that can serve this particular data to D apps. So uh anyone can just create this contract. Do you do you see a probability of this getting into an interface level proposal? Um I mean it could be an ERC where there is a system ERC contract that serves this particular data on a particular network but I'm not sure what kind of

clients this author is targeting because he wants D app D apps to serve this particular data and I'm not sure uh how is the entire thing coming together but uh unless basically it's a protocol related stuff or something that the elvin clients have to implement. Uh it does not belong into any IP. Okay. In that case, I will mark this pull request number 9312 uh for the next EIP IP meeting and we'll share with other editors. If there is a general consensus of closing this from EIP GitHub repository, we'll take the

action. Yeah, I think Sam's input in this uh would be very helpful. Cool. Uh okay. So I had put left some comments

on this EIP which I've haven't checked and I will look look at them and uh then sort of see what to do next on this particular EIP. Yeah, just to make sure they have already been addressed. Yeah, I mean the responses are here. I just need to see Sure. Sure. whether they address the concerns I had. Uh so basically we decided that okay we will let this EIP uh we'll consider this EIP and let it be a draft. Uh so the proposal needs to be well formatted. So that so uh regarding that whatever issues that I raised I'll check

whether they have been addressed or not. Sure. for PR 917 response and yeah make a decision on merging the proposal Okay. So the CI is right now breaking

and this is this proposal is not yet correctly formatted. Uh so maybe we'll take a look uh at it when the CI is passing and there are a lot of comments that have been left by the reviewers already. So we'll wait for them to be addressed. So for CI not passing anything for author any action item for author. I mean it's uh quite evident why it's not passing because it's giving sort of telling you why it's not passing.

So I think author hasn't taken a look at it and sure. Yeah, that makes sense. Like we don't have discussions too. So if you look at the errors that have been flagged uh they are quite easy easy to understand and uh the author should be able to address them very well. So for PR 9354 um it's on author to look at the comments added by reviewers and we'll get back on it.

Uh seems like Matt's work is right now work in progress. So uh and people are reviewing it, technically reviewing the PR. Uh so maybe we'll come back uh when the CI is passing and maybe other uh comments are addressed. Cool. per 950401. If this is not merged before the next EIP only editing hour, editing office hour, then we will bring it back to the agenda.

Yeah, I mean uh basically I think uh this is PR by Matt. So uh once he basically resolves the CI then we can look at it. Okay, that makes sense. Cool. I'm assuming that he's just right now technically working on the PR and resolving comments and once they are done he will resolve the CIA and then we can look at it from editing perspective. Sounds good. All right. Seems

like this should have been merged. So I'll try closing and opening the PR so that we trigger the board again.

Yeah. Do we have this URL

whitelisted? I'm not 100% sure. Maybe want to leave that as a comment that if it is not whitelisted perhaps they can add it with help of 5757. I mean like go through the proposal and or or maybe we have to create a call for input. It would we would it would not have been whit listed then we would have CI failing. Yeah. Maybe we should create a call for input

for this. And if this particular URL has been deprecated, yeah, although I'm trying to take a look at it, uh the RFC 8080 is still active. I mean, I can see it. I wonder Scanda if you have more comments on that. I mean the link is working well for me as well.

Um that's what the con but uh I think um yeah so is trying to say that um is uh deprecated but automatically redirects to um um yeah the the correct uh URL but uh if you want to keep the links um longevity um we should move it to the canonical representation which is uh I think uh uh is the one that I mentioned right I think some of the auditors may have objection on this but it would be a good idea to bring it to next EIPAP meeting for the reason that this proposal is like already finalized

that's number one and number two uh the external link that is added here is redirecting itself so there's no problem in accessing the data I mean we must have whit listed it otherwise the CI would have failed this particular PR right okay cool uh so are you planning to create a call for input for this one I mean if the link is correct scanner we can just approve it I I don't see any issue um yeah uh either of those are the canonical ones um it's um but the but

tools is deprecated. Okay, since the CI is not passing, u I

think Sam would have to take a look at it. P 9146. Okay, I'll add it to the next office hour. Yeah, even if the link is correct, I won't be able to approve it since the CI is not

passing. So is it like uh I mean it doesn't seem like one PR specific but since CI is failing may we want to check it with some on discord if there is some so basically what really happens is that these are old EIPs and as we have changed the rules uh no so these uh old EIPs they don't pass out rules and for the CI to pass one will have to fix all these things where there is no change but they no more pass in the CI. So what really happens is that I think Sam force merges for postmerges them uh based upon what uh the deface.

So if uh for example this update is correct then you will force merge it but it won't happen through uh through the uh through this bot through the GitHub B and uh that is basically what the issue is. So sounds good. So there's nothing wrong with the proposal. There is nothing that an author can fix. It's just that it requires a force merge. Yeah. Because uh old EIP some sections of it is no more passing CI because our CI rules have evolved since then and it will be becomes honorous for someone to make all the rules pass. So what we generally do is we

uh we basically force mudge uh such PRs if they are again these kind of spell checks or update of links or nothing material is being changed in in that particular PR. Sounds good. Yeah, this is also that kind of PR.

The 9314 should also be added for the force merge list. Yeah, I'm not even sure whether this particular change is relevant because this is just a CI workflow. But if someone has if we are going to merge this particular uh particular type of fixes in this EIP then I guess we can also merge that one as well because it doesn't hurt us anyway. Yeah, typo or I know I it's a category we are receiving a bunch of pull requests. I wish we have

some we have some ways to either directly merge them or just make a rule that okay if it is not significant changes let's let it live when they have moved to the final status but that's my personal view. Yeah. Yeah. And uh for this particular PR 9395 uh I think it requires one more review from one of the authors and I have already provided my review. Oh that's because it's a meta. Yep. Okay cool.

Yeah, I just left a comment over here uh that I mean we this is referring to a particular meeting. So I'll recheck this particular URL and see if it's see if it's working. Uh so this command doesn't apply because uh I thought that we had general links for EL and CL meetings but this is referring to a particular proposal which might have moved from this particular link to the new link and I'll just recheck it and then approve it if uh this is a correct URL.

Yes, on the GitHub side on Ethereum PM we have made some changes and some of the old links may not be valid anymore. Yeah, but uh even here as well I mean I won't be able to get it through. Oh yeah, I get the idea here. Yes, yes, no worries. But I will delete my comment because it's no more relevant. I realized it later on.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, I think that was the last uh PR added to the agenda. We do have a um a bunch of other open PRs um which we can filter it from project board but yeah that can be looked async as well in case you want want to take a quick look. Uh there are a few filters added as labels and we can filter it out based on what we want to review.

Currently there are a lot of tooling related some dependencies related and some of them are for editors. So I think I have covered all of them which were there listed for editors. There are a few other yeah if you can go to the labels and filter section you can find some filters there. Yeah I'll check out the filters and see if there is anything relevant. Sure. That sounds good. Very well. That brings us to the close of today's meeting. For people watching this now or later, u you are welcome to add your pull request as an uh

discussion item for the next meeting. We would love to review your proposals. Now, these agendas are being added to Ethereum/PM GitHub repositories. So please have a watch on the report and add your PRs for review. Thank you Gajendra Singh, thank you Scanda Mercy and everyone else joining us here today. Have a great rest of the [Music] day.

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

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