Inconsistent cEP metadata number format

[refeed]

In cEP-0000 and cEP-0001, the cEP number in the metadata table uses "XXXX" (e.g 0001) format. However, in cEP-0002 the number in the metadata table uses "X" (e.g 2). and cEP-0003 uses the XXXX format, and so on

This isn't consistent. Is there any rules regarding to cEP number formatting? if no, I think we need to choose one between those two format to stop this inconsistencies.

[refeed]

cc @jayvdb @sils @sims1253 @Makman2

[jayvdb]

cEP-0 says the metadata includes the number. I think the metadata should be just the number, without leading zeros.

[li-boxuan]

@jayvdb Why does this issue have process/pending review label? Shouldn't that only be used in pull requests?