EIP Editing Office Hour #79 (EIP Only)

Transcript

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

>> Thank you. >> Welcome to EIP editing office hour

meeting number 79. This is issue number 1809 on Ethereum/PM GitHub repository. Thank you Gajjender Singh. Gajjender is an EIP editor who is going to take this office hour and review proposals which are added on EIP GitHub repositories. Uh so Gajender, it's all yours. Maybe we can start with the review proposal. >> Yeah, thank you Puja. Let's get started. Looks all good.

>> Cool. Yeah, I noticed that this proposal is not for >> Fusaka. >> Maybe it is for Glamster. >> I'm sorry, I'm hearing an echo. >> Yeah. Nevertheless, the proposal can be moved in the review status even if it is not slated for uh like further ahead in [clears throat] the network upgrade uh schedules. The next one we have >> we can move to the next one.

>> Yeah, the next one we have here is for draft. I think there are bunch of open proposals for draft. So I did review this and added a few more comments and uh come back to it when the author will result.

>> Awesome. The next PR is 10768. Uh, from the from the description of this PR, it seems like it's an ERC. H, that's interesting. Maybe. Yeah, metadata interface. Yes, sounds definitely like that. Maybe we want to let the author know about it.

>> Yeah, it seems like >> Oh, yeah. They have mentioned it in as well. Yes. So we can just left a comment here for the author to move this proposal to ERC repo. Next pair is 9374

entity operations. Yes, it seems like you have already reviewed it once but uh the author seems to have responded to your comments but lot of the comments don't seem addressed. Sims.

All right. We can perhaps uh get to next PR which is 10311. It seems that you have already addressed rest of the drafts.

Yeah, all of them have been addressed. >> All of them have been addressed. So yeah. >> Yep. I mean it is definitely unclear to me

like what we are trying to fix here. Oh, it's e optional value. Sorry. No, I was referring to the other one. >> I think this is best addressed by the author. But why is author not tagged over here? >> Yeah. And I have noticed the issue that author is not being tagged in multiple other PRs. >> So I think I commented this uh somewhere in all the PRs where only assets are modified the authority is not being tagged.

So >> okay >> this is 6 475 Five. Hi.

>> Yes. >> Hi. >> Uh I I don't know how the >> I don't know how the >> jumping in. Sorry. >> Sorry. >> No worries. I believe I believe Nor if it would be >> muting that might help. Yeah, >> I guess. >> Yep. Hello Shabba. Do you have any particular PR that you would like to get it reviewed?

If so, please drop the link in the chat. >> Yeah. So I was jumping in for that to ask how it works actually. Um I'm just dropping the link soon and then we can see >> I mean generally we create an issue for that. So you can also drop the link in the issue and we can add it here. But while we have you on the call you can just uh drop the link in the chat and we can pick it up from there.

Okay. Just have to find the link the window. I think this seems to be adding a bunch of code.

>> Yeah. And here also if you notice that every time editors are only tagged the author of the proposal is no it is for website type of X right? >> Yeah. Yeah it correct. >> Yeah. So definitely author is not required. So >> author is not required. So yeah >> and uh wayos or whatever is the author names he has made a good bunch of PRs for improving the documentation and adding some tools but uh all of them needs to be addressed by Sam.

>> Would you want me to move it to EIP meeting? Yeah, I I'm as I have asked uh this particular uh PR author to create an issue for and list all his PRs for improving the documentation and all that. >> Yeah, that would make sense. Then I will pick it up from the issue section. I think uh I have this is another PR

where a person is suggesting to add a section I somehow remembering reviewing such a PR and I see it again. I don't know. Just comment So there is a question in the chat. So

it seems that there is a proposal which is already merged and the EIP number is 8077. And we are joined by Shaba. He has some questions with respect to motivation and rational. Yeah, please sh. >> Yeah. So I can when I was writing it uh I realized that between motivation and rational it was not clear to me what's what's kind of the the the light differentiation. So I was I was using >> I was using >> well first first I had mostly motivation >> first I had mostly motivation

>> and then I I've seen that uh so or the taxing motivation and then I've seen that rational is is proposed to be kind of to discuss design with so I try to do that um but I wanted to check if if I understood well if that's how it's used. >> Yeah motivation is why why are you proposing this? What is the pain point that you are trying to solve right? So it's basically why and again as you mentioned rational is what what are what is the reasoning behind making some design changes that you have done or why this particular EIP cons uh compared to some other alternative EIPs that are out there.

>> Okay. I see. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And the other another doubt I had is I see most EIP so this is networking specific specific on def uh DEP P2P which has its version numbers and most proposers are already putting version number ahead hoping that it will be that one I I was not putting it uh this just more of a question like that's something which can be updated last minute to the to the right version number right so typically is slash 69 or 70 or 71. Uh but because I don't know when what will

be the time ordering obviously version number is not good at this point. Yeah, that is fine. We understand that and uh before you move to review basically you should update the version number because you will move to review when uh there is a high chance of including it in some particular art fork. >> Mhm. Yeah, the other thing with with these IP is that they are not bound to help folks. So uh so uh so if you are not bound to hot folks then still basically you know >> uh whenever you have consensus among clients right so

>> yeah [clears throat] >> because clients need to implement these interfaces and uh >> so when you have consensus in ACD uh I then basically they will also allocate a particular version for it right so that's how it goes Okay. Yeah, thank you. I know it's basic questions, but I wasn't sure about the process. >> No worries. >> No issues. >> One last piece of information, Shaba. I don't know if you are aware of it or if it it applies to all networking proposals. These days, even networking proposals are also included in Meta E.

So if uh you go ahead with the normal review status when you are ready and comfortable and you have some temperature check you can add it to review otherwise it can be used when it it is considered to be a part of like future upgrade. Yeah, not necessarily that it will be um included in meta e if it is not being implemented by all the clients at the same time but generally this is now going to be a run >> uh with meta you mean uh you you mean the ones related to hard forks or or something else?

>> Yeah. So for example if you take a look at 7607 which is hard fork meta for Fusaka you would find um other proposals there E69 7642 which is a networking proposal and that is also included in here. Yeah, I know. I know. But it's something we actually discussed in ACD and and what was explicitly said is that we are not including all the networking proposals in the in the meta. Um also not to to overload the the process of the of the of the fog decision and ordering.

>> Yeah. No worries. Yeah. I just mentioned it in case it does not go through like normal course then that is also an alternative. So when it is can we use this path. Yeah. Thank you so much for joining and feel free to join in future calls if you have any further questions. >> Thank you. And uh yeah the for joining now I was just jumping on the call because I I just seen it in the calendar uh but was kind of the preferred way. So >> yeah that's exactly the preferred way. You can just drop a link to your PR or question on the agenda and join the call.

>> Perfect. Thank you much. >> Thank you. See you. Bye-bye. M and this seems correct but it's better that author reviews this. So I'll just drop in the comment and see whether author has been tagged or not. >> No, >> I'm not sure no one has been tagged. >> These uh statuses are still running. So maybe I'll just close and open the pull request.

>> Mhm. Yeah. I noticed like there are a few proposals in which authors are not being tagged. I don't know why something might have broken. We need to take a look into All right. So now the review board is

running and probably authors will be will be tagged. >> Okay, that's cool. So I see and next we I see bunch of related to deposit snapshot. I don't know if they all are interrelated or by the same proposer. Could we just kind of make them batch? >> Yeah. So I did commented on some of the max deposit removal thing.

I mean this technically the previous one is also fine and this is also fine but >> yeah there are a bunch of them with the same >> kind of similar requests. Yeah, edit. >> But again, authors are not tagged because I think the changes in assets and our port is not sort of flagging anything that is flagging the authors where assets are getting changed.

>> Okay. In that case maybe we can we can tag the authors. Yeah. Or would you want to like close and open all of them? There are three four. No, this is not because of closing or opening. This is because we have a faulty bot that is not tagging authors when anything is changing in assets.

>> [gasps] >> Oh, now I get it. Okay. Okay. Um, we need to even check that if any changes to assets I I [clears throat] don't think that we have this thing in the past that if there is any change in assets report then uh authors are tagged. It was only for the uh body and the uh header of uh a proposal. So we might have to revisit it. Good point. So there have been bunch of such PRs and I have sort of tagged Sam in each of them with the same text or similar text.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good catch. I think I commented over this. Yeah, I did comment. I don't so some of some of I feel that I have reviewed similar PRs and uh commented over them but they seem to be showing up without my comments. So >> there are approximately 300 PR now.

So I don't know if if people are just trying to repeat their PR or or they are like coming up with a lot of suggestions. Repetition is not the case. I think I approved another such PR. But what uh some of these people are trying to do is basically partially you know they are trying to spread the same change across many PR.

So for example you have many uh asset files over here and uh if the same changes over all the assets file they are not trying to make a one PR for it. They're just trying to create sep separate PR. I don't know maybe it's because they are trying to farm something sure about it but I'll just add in the comment anyway. >> Yeah I think making different PR is good here because we would like to tag the author of individual EIPs. So it makes sense to have different PR for different EIP but it would be a good idea to have them listed in one issue so people know that okay fine this is the set of changes you are proposing for different EIPs. It will be easier for editors.

>> No, even for the same EIP uh but you have many asset files, right? So >> across the same asset file for the same EIP they are doing multiple PRs for the same thing. For example, this ABC unused import it is it might be across maybe you know whatever files are there in this particular EIP assets. >> Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. And then definitely make making it look like most number of PRs merged. And again, I mean, uh, author should

have been tagged, but this is something that I can just verify and approve. One last PR in this series is PR10577.

Seems like my browser is stuck. Do you want to rejoin or something? >> Okay, it responded. So next I have added a few PRs which

seems to be either spam or no longer needed perhaps could be closed. Yeah, if you could review and confirm that then we can get them closed. I think uh Sam would be able to more definitely say whether these are needed or not. I can check for the uh 10567. >> Yeah. So generally speaking stagnant I mean I have added [clears throat] it here for a reason. Generally stagnant is a bot action. Bot makes proposal to go to stagnant. Um, and it was by a user.

So that's why I flagged it here. >> So this is a withdrawn EIP user is trying to move to stagnant and uh >> that's not allowed. Yeah. So anyway, not allowed. Yeah. So anyway definitely a spam action I mean I I don't know but uh maybe user wants to champion it. Let's ask this question because

>> but it's not allowed for any proposal. not allowed for any proposal >> withdrawn or final status cannot be resurrected. If he would want to do that uh then he has to come up with a new proposal even if you want to keep the entire content same and if he wants to resurrect why would he recommend going to stagnant status bring it to withdrawn review or some other status right sorry bring it to draft or review status All right, this seems to be it for today

and uh thank you. >> Yeah, thank you for like looking at the PRs before the call. That was helpful. We could run fast uh with the PRs which were added. Thank you so much for your time and people watching this uh recording later on or listening us on YouTube or Twitter, we do have a few announcements. We are going to have EIP summit at Argentina. So if you're around, please join us on November 21st. You can find that uh information on Dev Connect calendar and the next office hour is cancelled for next Tuesday. We will see you on November 25th at 1600 UTC.

Thank you everyone for joining us here today. >> Thank you everyone for joining us here >> thing.

Oh, heat, heat. Heat [music] [music] up here.

Heat. >> Heat. Heat.