EIPs
EIPs copied to clipboard
ethereum
Automatically merge all new EIP drafts
Proposed Change
Currently, the process for creating an EIP is not very simple and it is pretty time-consuming just to get an EIP to draft. I imagine a large part of the reason that a lot of EIPs end up stagnant is that the effort even to get an EIP into draft is a lot - more than is probably needed when the criteria for drafts, per EIP-1, is them being "properly formatted." We have tooling that lets users know when their EIPs aren't properly formatted, and we might soon have tooling to automatically fix the most common errors.
Currently, when an EIP is initially proposed is when things like "is this EIP ideal for its current purpose" are discussed and block the progress. Having an actual EIP that is being built and on which people can submit PRs that propose changes is, IMHO, better than the status quo, and would actually allow the community to take some of the burden off of the EIP editors.
This seems reasonable. I'd like to have a bit of discussion on it before we make a decision though.
I think we need a few more checks in eipw before I'm comfortable enabling this:
- ethereum/eipw#11
- ethereum/eipw#27
We'd also need an automated EIP number assigner.
@poojaranjan brought up a great point. A lot of EIPs die in the draft stage, so the first pull request is the only point editors have to influence these EIPs.
Plus we want to encourage discussion on magicians before draft, so we get bigger/more developed ideas in the repository.
I am now weakly against this proposal.
I have to disagree here. Editors can always open PRs to modify EIPs (like any other person).
I think that having draft EIPs automatically merge would encourage more participation for draft EIPs, as it gives the Ethereum community a longer time to suggest and make changes formally. As such, the quality of Draft EIPs, on the whole, would be lower, but the quality of EIPs moving to Review would be higher as people would have more time to participate in the horizontal review process.
IMO, if we're going to "auto-merge" drafts they should not get an EIP number. Other standards bodies have a draft stage where the proposal has not yet been assigned an RFC number (see Internet-Drafts). I would like to adopt a similar scheme. I think this would be valuable regardless if we move forward with the auto-merge.
I would agree with them not getting an EIP number. And if they become stagnant, I think they could just be deleted. +1
+1
but in that case we need to suggest a standard way for them to create file name with, for example some mnemonic name, e.g. eip-some-name.md
Nothing says that EIP "numbers" even have to be numeric. EIP editors, right now, could literally assign an EIP "number" of hello. We wouldn't since that would be stupid, but we could do this without too many changes.
CC @SamWilsn, how feasible would this be to add to EIPw?
I think they should have a different prefix completely to avoid any confusion.
I think they should have a different prefix completely to avoid any confusion.
How about EIP-draft-X and ERC-draft-X?
How about EIP-draft-X and ERC-draft-X?
Sounds good.
X could be ether a number or a mnemonic alias string
Mnmonecs sounds good to me. Better than a draft number, reducing chance of confusion with regular EIP number
@poojaranjan brought up a great point. A lot of EIPs die in the draft stage, so the first pull request is the only point editors have to influence these EIPs.
Plus we want to encourage discussion on magicians before draft, so we get bigger/more developed ideas in the repository.
I am now weakly against this proposal.
Yes good, kill them while the gestate. If you do not have the time to shepherd it through a GitHub pull request what chance do they have of championing it through all the factions in the greater community?
Plus why make more work for yourself, lol.
Plus why make more work for yourself, lol.
That's the problem I have with having two bars: you are doubling the workload. You have to review it once during draft, and again when it reaches review. The difference is that Review EIPs are typically nicer to review, having been somewhat proofread and shortened. So why not get rid of that first step?
There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.
Honestly it would be great for drafts to be in a completely separate repo, decrease the traffic to the main repo.
Honestly it would be great for drafts to be in a completely separate repo, decrease the traffic to the main repo.
How about a completely separate folder?
There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.
I am very against this change if it assigns them an EIP number. I think it should give a DEIP number or something separate.
There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.
I am very against this change if it assigns them an EIP number. I think it should give a DEIP number or something separate.
It will not. It will assign them a string identifier.
There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.