Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Update EIP-1: Fix Backward Compatibility Typos #5680

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Update EIP-1: Fix Backward Compatibility Typos #5680

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4062ab9
Update EIP-1: Fix Backward Compatibility Typo
Pandapip1 Sep 18, 2022
e4ce6b0
Fix section name
Pandapip1 Sep 18, 2022
e49d57b
Backward without the s, please 😠
Pandapip1 Sep 18, 2022
710e6b7
Merge branch 'master' into Pandapip1-backward-compatibility-eip1
Pandapip1 Nov 12, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion EIPS/eip-1.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ Each EIP should have the following parts:
- Motivation _(optional)_ - A motivation section is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the EIP solves. This section may be omitted if the motivation is evident.
- Specification - The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Ethereum platforms (cpp-ethereum, go-ethereum, parity, ethereumJ, ethereumjs-lib, [and others](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Clients).
- Rationale - The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion around the EIP.
- Backwards Compatibility _(optional)_ - All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their consequences. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. This section may be omitted if the proposal does not introduce any backwards incompatibilities, but this section must be included if backward incompatibilities exist.
- Backward Compatibility _(optional)_ - All EIPs that introduce backward incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their consequences. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. This section may be omitted if the proposal does not introduce any backward incompatibilities, but this section must be included if backward incompatibilities exist.
- Test Cases _(optional)_ - Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Tests should either be inlined in the EIP as data (such as input/expected output pairs, or included in `../assets/eip-###/<filename>`. This section may be omitted for non-Core proposals.
- Reference Implementation _(optional)_ - An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification. This section may be omitted for all EIPs.
- Security Considerations - All EIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life-cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. EIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions eip-template.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new
## Rationale
The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages.

## Backwards Compatibility
All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. EIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
## Backward Compatibility
All EIPs that introduce backward incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. EIP submissions without a sufficient backward compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.

## Test Cases
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. If the test suite is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding it as one or more files in `../assets/eip-####/`.
Expand Down