EIPs

EIPs copied to clipboard

Changes EIP-1 to force ERCs to be referenced as ERC-X instead of EIP-X.

NOTE: I honestly don't actually care if this change is implemented (in fact, I lean slightly towards keeping ERC references as EIP-X). I am just making this PR so that the appropriate action can be taken immediately once a consensus is reached.

Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):

---

(fail) eip-1.md

classification
updateEIP

• Changes to EIP 1 require at least 5 unique approvals from editors; there's currently 2 approvals; the remaining editors are @axic, @lightclient, @gcolvin

We should turn off EIPW for EIP-1. I don't particularly care on this one either, I'll defer to others.

We should turn off EIPW for EIP-1.

Done in #5278

As one of the main proponents for referring to EIPs in the ERC category, I'm a 👍 on this.

Per EIPIP 62 decision item 3, ERC is okay. Let's go ahead and merge this.

@SamWilsn manual merge needed

Per EIPIP 62 decision item 3, ERC is okay. Let's go ahead and merge this.

I'm still against referring to proposals of category ERC as ERC-X, to be clear.

As written in the linked summary, it sounds like we want to allow ERC-X or EIP-X for these proposals. Is that the rule I should implement in eipw?

Is that the rule I should implement in eipw?

No. It was definitely agreed upon in advance that it must be consistent, at least for EIPs. Therefore, they should only be able to be referred to as ERCs.

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.

@lightclient are you still happy with these changes?

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.

I think this is still something @lightclient and @gcolvin want

We really need to do this. Many people in the community are becoming confused by our backtracking of ERC => EIP.

Just for the record, I am not a fan of this idea, as I think that all other Standard Track EIPs are still documented as EIP and so should be Standard Track ERC. Community are free to call EIP-20 or ERC-20 as per their convenience.

However, if people agree to go with changing the documentation in EIP-1 as ERC-x, I'd like to see the change in the .md file of respective proposals to avoid confusion.

As promised, here's the eipw implementation: https://github.com/ethereum/eipw/pull/48

---

I'm still opposed.

Documenting discussion: this issue was discussed on EIPIP Meeting 69. The resolution is

1. @lightclient and @xinbenlv expressed in favor
2. @SamWilsn continue to feel against, but is now open to further discuss in discord, if there is a strong consensus in favor of this PR, he will not block it.

@poojaranjan and everyone correct me if I was wrong

I am also -0 (not in favor, but not blocking).

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.

Dismissing stale bot.