CIP-0067, CIP-0068 | Add Clarification for Edits and Modification #586
Conversation
Clarify the use of version, introduce changelog. Fixes cardano-foundation#520.
…uld be made to either CIP-67 or CIP-68
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Crypto2099 I am really happy with this so far even though you may still consider it a draft. We have 2 pending PRs based on this material (#504 #551) & I'll link them back here next so those authors & reviewers can help make sure the new process & language will address all pending concerns.
rphair
changed the title
|
@Crypto2099 since I know you had already corrected grammar I did find something which I believed to be still incorrect & took a stab at fixing what appeared to be both a couple grammar errors + a nonsensical technical statement: please double check after the last 2 commits. |
These couple additional grammatical errors also seem to make sense and fit in the scope of this so happy with those changes :) |
* Inclusion of an "extension_boilerplate.md" file for reference in subsequent PRs. * Update headers to current CIP-0001 format
|
@SamDelaney would love your feedback on the latest changes and the addition of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With versioning addressed in last commit as per #586 (review) I'm in agreement with all this. 😎 (edit, p.s. I had missed the header preamble changes with the inappropriate Meta category)
Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>
|
FYI @Crypto2099 we need a rebase to fix the merge conflict after finally merging #551 😬 |
Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>
…uld be made to either CIP-67 or CIP-68
* Inclusion of an "extension_boilerplate.md" file for reference in subsequent PRs. * Update headers to current CIP-0001 format
…nto donoteditCIP68 # Conflicts: # CIP-0067/README.md # CIP-0068/README.md
Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>
…nto donoteditCIP68
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @Crypto2099 for the fine tuning & rebase... and for not doing a force push and overwriting the commit history. There's (perhaps unavoidably) some duplication in the branch but it matches the scope of changes that I originally remember. So if you can confirm nothing has been taken away, then I can confirm nothing inappropriate has been added 😅
|
great: merging so we can more forward with this as a baseline for merge conflict resolution of #523 as per meeting decision today. |
…rdano-foundation#586) * Bump CIP-0068 version for RFT Clarify the use of version, introduce changelog. Fixes cardano-foundation#520. * Changes to CIP-67 and CIP-68 to inform how, when, and why changes should be made to either CIP-67 or CIP-68 * fix a few grammar errors in 1 sentence of original document * fixing error in my error fix / clarification * * Minor grammatical and feedback updates. * Inclusion of an "extension_boilerplate.md" file for reference in subsequent PRs. * Update headers to current CIP-0001 format * Update CIP-0068/README.md Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]> * Update CIP-0067/README.md Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]> * Update CIP-0067/README.md Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]> * Changes to CIP-67 and CIP-68 to inform how, when, and why changes should be made to either CIP-67 or CIP-68 * fix a few grammar errors in 1 sentence of original document * fixing error in my error fix / clarification * * Minor grammatical and feedback updates. * Inclusion of an "extension_boilerplate.md" file for reference in subsequent PRs. * Update headers to current CIP-0001 format * Update CIP-0068/README.md Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: KtorZ <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>
documentationproperty (URL) to the CIP-67 registry.json file. If we are going to require that future extensions of the CIP-68 standard be submitted via a separate CIP, then when documenting them within the context of the CIP-67 registry it's important for implementers to be able to find documentation on these asset label names and how to support them (if necessary).Happy to discuss and refine this as needed but consider this simply a first draft.