Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft, Review, or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft, Review, or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
I have gone through and updated all existing EIPs to match this rule, including EIP-1.
In some cases, people were using markdown citations, I suspect because the long-form was a bit verbose to inline. Since the relative path is quite short, I moved these to inline but I wouldn't be opposed to putting them back to citation format if that is desired by the authors.
In doing the migration/cleanup, I found some EIP references to EIPs that don't actually exist. In these cases I tried to excise the reference from the EIP as best I could.
It is worth noting that the Readme actually already had this rule, it just wasn't expressed properly in EIP-1 and the "Citation Format" section of the readme I think caused people a bit of confusion (when citing externally, you should use the citation format).
* Try to clarify the meaning of EIP fields
* Remove unhelpful extra comments in the template
* Change EIP-1491 from CRLF to LF
* Remove template comments from EIPs
* Fix heading: Abstarct -> Abstract
* Update EIP-2014
* Change author list of EIP-1
