-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
Editorial: Fix/ecip 1049 #466
Editorial: Fix/ecip 1049 #466
Conversation
Date: 2022-02-21 09:27:59-08:00 Signed-off-by: meows <[email protected]>
Date: 2022-02-21 09:33:16-08:00 Signed-off-by: meows <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
LGTM |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For @bobsummerwill and his staff, I hope you find this helpful in bringing this ECIP into compliance with the ECIP process.
I do not see why you have blocked this PR, @gitr0n1n. These two changes from @meowsbits are free-standing and useful in their own right. |
Should not be blocked, these are minor fixes
The specification did not appear to be up to ECIP-1000 standards- but it certainly is better than none. The intent wasn't to "block" but request changes. |
License
field in headerSpecification
sectionPer the bureaucratic regulations at
ECIP Format and Structure
.