Update EIP template: Remove non-required fields and add acceptable placeholders

[Pandapip1]

trafficstars

• Removes the eip preamble field from the template. Editors can simply add it themselves.
• Moves the asterisks in the preamble fields to comments
• Moves all the instructions to HTML comments
• Adds a note to read EIP-1 before making an EIP
• Removes Motivation, Reference Implementation, and Test Cases sections
• Adds placeholders to Rationale, Backwards Compatibility, and Security considerations
• Removes an external link

[eth-bot]

All tests passed; auto-merging...

(pass) eip-template.md

classification
ambiguous

• file eip-template.md is not a valid filename, but this error has been ignored due to editor approvals

(pass) index.html

classification
ambiguous

• file index.html is not a valid filename, but this error has been ignored due to editor approvals

[SamWilsn]

I'm worried we'll get a ton of EIPs that have the comments left in with this :rofl:

I do appreciate moving the optional bits after the colon in the preamble though.

[Pandapip1]

I'm worried we'll get a ton of EIPs that have the comments left in with this 🤣

We do anyways. I'd say a good 1/8 of incoming drafts have at least one of the sections left unchanged or the bit before the abstract not removed - typically the rationale, backwards compatibility, or security considerations section.

[SamWilsn]

That's fair. Perhaps a lint for HTML style comments in eipw would help.

[Pandapip1]

That's fair. Perhaps a lint for HTML-style comments in eipw would help.

Go ahead -- be warned that some people use them to indicate TODOs.

[github-actions[bot]]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[Pandapip1]

Not stale.

[SamWilsn]

Can we separate this into two PRs: one to put the instructions in comments, and then a second to remove the optional sections? I am in favour of the first, and against the second.

[Pandapip1]

@SamWilsn your concerns have been addressed.

[github-actions[bot]]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[Pandapip1]

@SamWilsn mind re-reviewing?

[SamWilsn]

Oh sorry, I have notifications off for this repo. Feel free to ping me directly if you need me!

[github-actions[bot]]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[Pandapip1]

@SamWilsn this is ready for review again.

[github-actions[bot]]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[Pandapip1]

Still would like this.

[github-actions[bot]]

The commit 0ce90344a1eeba69ddaaa2722e912fae20d5aa63 (as a parent of d14c7351aa8dff5abe7633041874712358371a8b) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

[on-theway]

test