Sam Stokes
I'm in favor of [2] because I think it would be a huge devX improvement by removing confusion around hardforks for internal+external teams. Additionally, if the toml files contain the...
@mds1 what level of chain should all of these new param checks be run against? The options are: * universal (all chains) * standard chain candidates (not yet standard, but...
@mds1 @ajsutton It sounds like we need to detect whether a chain is using permissioned vs permissionless fault proofs, and base some expected results on which flavor of fault proofs...
@mds1 @ajsutton getting closer but have a few more questions: > OptimismPortal.respectedGameType would tell you what's currently in use (0 is permissionless, 1 is permissioned) Will use that call to...
I added a [file here](https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/superchain-registry/blob/857266f1a30719d8588bbc7cabe8cff38afd526c/validation/standard/op-program-releases.toml) that keeps track of all the `op-program` prestate hashes that will allow the `Fault Game Absolute Prestate` test to pass. This follows a pattern we...
> do we need absolutely all these changes? If we want to use the `cherry-pick` method with minimal/no manual modifications for backporting, then all of these commits are required to...
@tynes we are close to fixing the 2 sources of truth for roles and most of the contract addresses. See [this pr](https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/superchain-registry/pull/951) and the "follow-up" work section in its description.
My understanding is that we still need the `[optimism]` section in the chain config .toml files, but we want to move it from its own section and instead embed it...
Since this is a breaking change anyways, could we take this opportunity to rename `[optimism]` to `[gas_params]`? `[optimism]` is not a helpful name IMO