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.

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

Consensus-layer Call 102 #711

Closed
djrtwo opened this issue Jan 16, 2023 · 12 comments
Closed

Consensus-layer Call 102 #711

djrtwo opened this issue Jan 16, 2023 · 12 comments

Comments

@djrtwo
Copy link
Collaborator

djrtwo commented Jan 16, 2023

Consensus-layer Call 102 Agenda

prev: call 101

Meeting Date/Time: Thursday 2023/2/9 at 14:00 UTC
Meeting Duration: 1.5 hours

livestream

  1. Capella
  2. 4844
    • block/blob decoupling (maybe simulation results)
  3. Research, spec, etc
  4. Open Discussion/Closing Remark
@mkalinin
Copy link
Contributor

mkalinin commented Feb 2, 2023

Action item from the #715 call: provide an update on the block/blob decoupling simulation.

@mkalinin
Copy link
Contributor

mkalinin commented Feb 3, 2023

I'd like to ask whether client developers have capacity to include the following small change into Capella/Shanghai:

@terencechain
Copy link
Contributor

I'd like to ask whether client developers have capacity to include the following small change into Capella/Shanghai:

* [Engine API: deprecate exchangeTransitionConfiguration execution-apis#375](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-apis/pull/375)

Prysm already has a PR opened back in Sept. As soon as it's merged, Prysm can get that in prysmaticlabs/prysm#11452

@mkalinin
Copy link
Contributor

mkalinin commented Feb 4, 2023

Prysm already has a PR opened back in Sept. As soon as it's merged, Prysm can get that in prysmaticlabs/prysm#11452

I should have provided more detail on the deprecation path. The proposed change says that CL must not surface an error if the method call fails, but it also implies that CL must make this call. This is done to avoid user to see any warnings in their log related to exchangeTransitionConfiguration because it may upgrade CL client first and after that upgrade EL. If this soft deprecation isn't needed we can go hard and remove this method on both sides at the same time.

@terencechain
Copy link
Contributor

Under 1. Capella, can we allocate a few mins to talk about the current progress for relayer and builder testing?

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator

timbeiko commented Feb 8, 2023

On today's EIPIP call, we continued the discussion about making the EIP process more accommodating for CL folks. One solution we came to is to allow a couple CL folks to join as EIP Editors, with the ability to force-merge CL EIPs. This would hopefully reduce the friction of using EIPs, and allow more CL people to become familiar with the process. If we have time, I can give a 2-3 min recap of the conversation and make a call for CL editors 😄

@paulhauner
Copy link

Regarding the date for the Capella fork on Sepolia, Lighthouse is happy to go ahead with a fork date of late March. I've heard March 27th being suggested, I support that date or anything similar.

Lighthouse is currently maintaining a capella branch separate to our mainline stable/unstable branches. We're confident to call the capella branch feature-complete and ready for public testnets.

Over the next couple of weeks we will work on performing a holistic review on capella then merging it into our mainlines branches. Our goal is to publish a fully-fledged v3.5.0 release which will be Sepolia Capella ready, before the Sepolia fork. In the worst case, we will publish a special non-mainnet, release-candidate for Sepolia which will enable the Capella fork there.

The bottom line is that our implementation is ready to go and we're just working on the finer details of getting it into a release which does not block testnets.

@hwwhww
Copy link
Collaborator

hwwhww commented Feb 9, 2023

I want to warn the CL spec contributors that we are going to merge ethereum/consensus-specs#3215 soon and it will cause new conflicts to the open EIP-4844 PRs.

@barnabasbusa
Copy link
Member

@paulhauner did you mean late Feb or late March? Any reason you feel like we should be waiting till late March?

@tbenr
Copy link
Contributor

tbenr commented Feb 9, 2023

I'd like to ask whether client developers have capacity to include the following small change into Capella/Shanghai:

Ok for teku to include that.

@benjaminion
Copy link

Call notes.

@paulhauner
Copy link

@paulhauner did you mean late Feb or late March? Any reason you feel like we should be waiting till late March?

Yep sorry I meant Feb 🤦

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants