Ethereum Cat Herders EIP editor apprenticeship meeting, 12 Jul 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: EIP Editors Apprenticeship Meeting 21

Description

Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/154

A

Well, thank you. Everyone for joining thanks, matt and thanks uh sam also all the authors who have joined today. um So generally, we will be following the ish items listed here in the agenda, so yeah. If you have any specific question, please feel free to share.

A

My yeah, you would like to screen share.

B

Yeah, let's share the screen.

B

C

Okay, 173 final.

A

Okay, my question here is this proposal is already final, so is it just too close.

C

Sorry, let me close a couple of these tabs, so I can actually see what's happening here.

B

C

So they want to move this to final, but it's already final you're saying.

A

Yes, that's right looks like there was another pull request which got mushed.

C

Weird, maybe they're, just out of sync, okay, nick and dan wrote this.

B

D

That was weird.

B

Let's look and see the history of this eip on master.

C

Okay, so panda that moved at the final three days ago- and this was opened.

C

Ten days ago, okay, interesting.

C

Okay, so I'm guessing panda pip saw that this guy was trying to make it final, and then he made his own pr, but I'm not sure why he didn't just update this pr or like because we can't.

C

Oh, you can't update this okay.

E

Well, probably yeah only contributors can do that.

C

uh Wait, what do you mean.

E

Only people with uh contributor status on the repository can directly edit pr's. You guys don't have contributor status, oh panapip does uh no. We have contributor, I guess it's. It's admin.

C

Oh well, I don't, I think it's somewhere in between, because I can do it on other repos that I'm not admin on. So maybe access yeah, I don't know okay anyways, that's that makes sense. I think the only thing is like maybe yeah. You should have mentioned that just so. There was like a link between the two but yeah. It looks like we can just close this.

B

This was moved to final in five two one: zero.

B

D

Jackal trick.

C

Those are the things I love to see in the morning.

E

Yeah, so this one uh pen and paper is adding a zero width space to try and get jekyll to stop messing with the uh path. Oh.

C

This is to fix this thing.

E

But uh that would break copying and pasting, which I think is equally.

D

E

um So micah has another suggestion that he's suggested, and I don't know where we're at with that.

E

I think the correct thing to do is raise a bug with jekyll, but you know.

C

How dare we fix something the right way.

E

C

Okay, this link is relative, but in the rendered version is absolutely.

E

Yeah, it's completely ridiculous, like there's a yeah like a code block or sorry an inline code block with um like a relative link, example and uh yeah. You can see it right there with the dot, slash eip1, but jekyll.

A

E

It to an absolute path.

C

How does it do that? I.

E

C

C

C

That's right: okay, yeah.

B

C

Yeah I mean this is the wrong solution. I need a better solution.

C

I'm just gonna close that I don't think that it's worth.

B

Continuing down that path.

C

A zero width space. That's interesting, though,.

C

Moving to reviews, 35 25.

B

B

That's the wrong format. Did the bots catch this.

B

I don't have a discussion.

B

Or not, discussion description, I should say.

B

These changes make sense.

B

Let's just take a quick overall look at it.

B

Let's try the patience back.

B

C

Forgetting the correct word here, whenever you're referring to something it's like duplicate, because they're saying.

B

C

B

Backwards compatibility implementations, that's wrong. I think.

C

Security consideration is not optional right.

A

C

Was thinking for a moment, but it doesn't appear to be optional here on one right now.

C

I was thinking it was required for core only, but maybe I'm confusing this with backwards compatibility.

A

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Maybe the backward compatibility is not required.

E

Yeah security considerations is definitely required.

E

It's a blockchain for crying out loud.

C

I'm just thinking of this vine, where it's like: when will you learn that your actions have consequences? Now? That's.

E

C

There's an old name honestly: we should bring that back for the blockchains.

C

Okay, this place this one has some merge, conflicts and panda. Pip left quite a bit of feedback yesterday and they have not acted on it. So maybe I'll just take a quick.

B

Look real quick see if there's anything.

A

So this proposal we requested them yesterday in the url uri meeting to move it to the next status, but yeah.

A

They need to resolve the conflict.

C

C

Yeah, it looks like they're pretty much on it.

B

Dropped to review four eight three four.

B

Hire our control domain standard.

E

This is the one that's like a simpler ens, at least that's what it's marketed as.

B

C

Here give me one second to look up the window and see if this trash truck is picking up our trash or not.

A

This is by panda beep, and it looks like with dns right.

B

C

C

B

The generic name resolution of access controls.

C

I mean it looks fine to me. Obviously panda pip knows the correct formatting.

B

Okay, new ones.

B

Five: two one: six: okay: we can do them soon.

B

Let's do this one first, though, extending erc 1155 with rentable usage rights.

C

I don't understand why people don't delete this.

E

I know it drives me insane like I'm just like what are you doing, we should just change the template, so it's commented out so at least it doesn't show up.

B

A

Maybe an additional comment here: please delete the below comment when you're making a pull request.

B

Yeah, that would probably be helpful.

B

B

B

C

I've only seen this like three times already.

E

uh Is this uh yet another, oh, is this uh 1155 yeah.

A

E

The same author, just for 11.55 instead of uh 721, I don't know.

C

Oh man, it would be really cool if there was somebody like really driving the nft standards.

A

I have invited annette to tomorrow's meeting the eipip meeting. She is leading the nfp standard working group. Probably we can bring it up there.

C

Where did they do work at? Because I don't really. I don't know where to follow anything that they're up to. I don't really see it on the fem form.

A

No, it's not there. I think they have a separate web website for that. Maybe I can find a link.

C

Yeah, I don't know one thing that I kind of feel like is like I don't know, femme is not really as nice as it once was. It just seems, like I, don't know the same problem with the eeps repository just having so many nft eaps, it's hard to really follow what's happening, whereas it used to be, I don't know, I guess I could just go and look at core.

C

That should be a possibility.

C

Actually, none of them are tagged as core, though it's a problem.

C

I don't know I could probably improve the curation a little bit anyways.

C

Nft standards wtf.

B

I think I okay.

C

This isn't very fancy.

C

They don't even hyphenate it god, damn it.

E

Well, isn't the interface erc 721 and then the standard is eip-721, it.

B

E

So that one's confusing.

C

I mean the only place it's erc. 721 no hyphen is in the solidity contracts. Imo.

C

But yeah it sucks that that's the way that that is but look they don't even do it down here and then they do it here. This is oh man, this is the ercc. This is the special version.

B

B

uh Rational backwards.

C

Compatibility security considerations.

B

C

Extending erc 155 with approvals by amount.

B

It looks like we have gotten a few reviews in the last couple hours, but.

C

We will take a quick look: wow 28, 000 lines. Let's go.

E

Like letting people include package lock is a mistake.

C

I understand you say thanks but already done, but it doesn't appear to be updated.

E

I think it's just like uh the comment was already made.

B

Okay, I'll resolve it or.

E

Is there another, um do they open a new pull request.

B

I don't think there's any full request. Yeah.

E

Just re-expand that again yeah so.

B

Yeah: okay, it's the same one.

E

Yeah yeah, so I don't know.

B

E

Wow they're, just hitting all of the contentious review topics here.

C

Can you leave these unresolved until they're actually updated, looks like these are still absolute.

E

Yeah, I don't get that like. How are you supposed to use the resolve button like.

C

I personally use it like I used as like a to-do list of things to update if somebody lost a lot of feedback.

E

Yeah but then like okay, so if you use it as a to-do list as the pull request like creator and then when you resolve it, then the person when they're checking the pr has to open all of them to make sure that you actually made the changes.

E

C

True as well yeah, I mean it's not a great. It's not an ideal. Workflow.

E

Yeah, I usually let the the person who made the comment resolve them.

C

Yeah, that's fair actually, because a lot of times github will also say, like these were changed and yeah yeah.

C

C

C

hmm What do we decide about the licensing within the repo.

E

uh No licensing uh prefer cc0. um If you can't bcc0, then anything that isn't like gpl is fine.

C

Yeah I'm thinking like if you're importing things you can't really be cc0.

E

Yeah yeah, you should be able to because you're not redistributing the code you're just importing it, but, like you, can't have anything that depends like technically, you can't have anything that depends on gpl. You can't have anything that depends on um proprietary code like that kind of thing, but uh for the actual code, that's here as long as it's like cc0 mit apache, the unlicense.

E

Any of those are fine. Okay,.

C

What do we want to do about this package lock.

E

Yeah just tell them to delete it. It's too big and useless.

E

And it'll fail the spell check too, if I'm not mistaken,.

E

A

E

So once you release something as cc0, um it's known a lot like it's public domain, so there's no reason to dual license it so yeah. Basically, you have to delete the mit license.

D

C

I haven't eaten any breakfast today, I'm starting to crash a little bit.

B

I'm gonna get some water actually give me one. Second, I'm gonna grab some water.

A

This is what fourth proposal on account abstraction.

E

Oh there's so many of them this one's this one's like a spin-off of four three three seven well similar enough but yeah.

A

Yeah again, this is a erc.

C

Endorsed operations, I mean this is just what 437 is. What is the difference.

E

Oh, it doesn't have the strict mempool rules and instead uses a bonding method so uh like to become a like an entry point contract. You have to put up a bond and then uh people will like blacklist you. If you misbehave.

D

Oh man, you'll have oh yeah yeah. You should.

A

C

The comprehensive list would be too long.

C

Man, he doesn't use the hyphen either straight to jail.

C

Wow they're, just it's awesome, we're going in who's this guy for.

C

This guy working consensus or no, I.

E

Don't know I've seen him around a few times same.

C

Okay, that's neat.

C

So they're hoping this is a draft.

C

C

And if only half the amount of effort in the construction standards went into trying to make better tooling for, like transaction bundles.

C

C

It seems like they're kind of making up some terminology like the endorser.

C

To validate arbitrary operations, I don't know this is really just like the.

C

Validation check that we do with 2938.

C

You skip records every day, sam you're, an absolute unit.

B

C

I don't get why this does not require monitoring forbidden opcodes, like I don't think other proposals do either it's just a server-side check.

C

I don't know it seems it seems interesting, but.

E

I am I'm a firm believer that referenced eips should not be in the requires header, because that.

C

Makes sense yeah.

E

Agreed, I don't know why he's trying to do that because he there's two parts to it like the first rule. Is that if you link to an eip, it has to be in the requires header, and the second part, is the status of the current eip, can't advance advance past the status of eips and the requires header.

E

So that way, you can't like a final eip, can't link to a draft, um but I still think that the header needs to be renamed. If we, if you do that,.

B

Okay, travis is failing. Description, exceeds 140 train information at their handle, miss those. So I have robots.

B

ah Yes, there's a period there unnecessary.

C

I like how it looks good to me, but travis said no. It's not look good to me.

A

Bot is overtaking.

C

And honestly, I could probably just fix these right now.

C

B

C

All right, hopefully, that merges.

C

Nft future war rewards.

C

C

Okay, lots of feedback already.

B

We have cool graphics, it's always nice.

B

B

B

C

Diamond handler.

C

C

Is this just a ponzi scheme.

A

They're requesting for standardization.

E

A standard ponzi scheme.

E

C

B

B

What's going on here.

B

B

Man, even panda pet, doesn't delete it.

B

C

I got a gif in here.

B

C

Okay, maybe we can do one more.

C

Authenticity method for client script, the authenticity.

B

Of an erc, 5169 client script for token contracts, I don't even know what oh. This is probably something he also made.

B

Maybe we review this one then first.

B

This is a very short one: client script, uri for token contracts,.

B

To point to point.

B

To points to an executive associated functionality of the token.

B

B

C

Does that mean that it requires 5170.

C

If he says it has to check all these things or it implements erc5170, I think that means it has to require it, because, if yeah, if all of these are not true, but it does implement five 170 and for some reason they didn't do that check, then it should be compatible, but they return. It's not.

C

C

E

B

E

It's coming eventually.

C

C

B

Didn't get through.

D

All of them, but that's some decent work.

A

Yeah, I'm hoping that maybe uh erc authors who are having some questions join this meeting and share their question and I hope that it would be helpful for them um yeah. That's all! Thank you. So much matt and sam for joining hope to see you in two weeks and maybe tomorrow, on eipab meeting, have a good one sounds.

C

Good bye, puja, bye, sam.