mirror of https://github.com/status-im/EIPs.git
Updated templates
This commit is contained in:
Souptacular
parent
0d06b5e739
commit
83991ef5c3
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
|||
|
||||
ATTENTION! If you would like to submit an EIP and it has already been written as a draft (see the [template](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-X.md) for an example), please submit it as a [Pull Request](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pulls).
|
||||
|
||||
If you are considering a proposal but would like to get some feedback on the idea before submitting a draft, then continue opening an Issue as a thread for discussion. Note that the more clearly and completely you state your idea the higher the quality of the feedback you are likely to receive.
|
||||
|
||||
Keep in mind the following guidelines from [EIP-1](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1.md):
|
||||
|
||||
> Each EIP must have a champion - someone who writes the EIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The EIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is EIP-able. Posting to the the Protocol Discussion forum or opening an Issue is the best way to go about this.
|
||||
|
||||
> Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a EIP is meant to save the potential author time. Asking the Ethereum community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the Internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where Ethereum is used.
|
||||
|
||||
> Once the champion has asked the Ethereum community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft EIP should be presented as a Pull Request. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft EIP to make properly formatted, of high quality, and to address initial concerns about the proposal.
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
|||
This is the suggested template for creating new EIPs.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that an EIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your EIP, use an abbreviated title in the filename, eip-draft_title_abbrev.md.
|
||||
|
||||
## Preamble
|
||||
<pre>
|
||||
EIP: <to be assigned>
|
||||
Title: <EIP title>
|
||||
Author: <list of authors' names and optionally, email addresses>
|
||||
Type: <Standard Track | Informational | Meta>
|
||||
Category(*only required for Standard Track): <Core | Networking | Interface | ERC>
|
||||
Status: Draft
|
||||
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
|
||||
Requires (*optional): <EIP number(s)>
|
||||
Replaces (*optional): <EIP number(s)>
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
## Simple Summary
|
||||
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the EIP.
|
||||
|
||||
## Abstract
|
||||
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Motivation
|
||||
The motivation 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. EIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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, ...).
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Cases
|
||||
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other EIPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation
|
||||
The implementations must be completed before any EIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the EIP is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of "rough consensus and running code" is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Copyright
|
||||
License: Apache 2.0
|
||||
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
|||
This is the suggested template for creating new EIPs.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that an EIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your EIP, use an abbreviated title in the filename, eip-draft_title_abbrev.md.
|
||||
|
||||
## Preamble
|
||||
<pre>
|
||||
EIP: <to be assigned>
|
||||
Title: <EIP title>
|
||||
Author: <list of authors' names and optionally, email addresses>
|
||||
Type: <Standard Track | Informational | Meta>
|
||||
Category(*only required for Standard Track): <Core | Networking | Interface | ERC>
|
||||
Status: Draft
|
||||
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
|
||||
Requires (*optional): <EIP number(s)>
|
||||
Replaces (*optional): <EIP number(s)>
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
## Simple Summary
|
||||
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the EIP.
|
||||
|
||||
## Abstract
|
||||
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Motivation
|
||||
The motivation 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. EIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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, ...).
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Cases
|
||||
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other EIPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation
|
||||
The implementations must be completed before any EIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the EIP is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of "rough consensus and running code" is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Copyright
|
||||
License: Apache 2.0
|
||||
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,23 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<pre>
|
||||
EIP: <EIP number>
|
||||
Title: <EIP title>
|
||||
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
|
||||
Discussions-To: <email address>
|
||||
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Rejected | Withdrawn | Final | Superseded>
|
||||
Type: <Standards Track | Informational | Process>
|
||||
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
|
||||
Replaces: <EIP number>
|
||||
Superseded-By: <EIP number>
|
||||
Resolution: <url>
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
==Abstract==
|
||||
|
||||
==Motivation==
|
||||
|
||||
==Specification==
|
||||
|
||||
==Rationale==
|
||||
|
||||
==Implementation==
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue