ECIP-1083: Remove Contract Size Limit

[BelfordZ]

ref: ethereum/EIPs#1662 ethereum/EIPs#170

[BelfordZ]

bump

[bobsummerwill]

Hey Zachary,
I think the only thing holding this up from being merged is that WIP is not a valid status.
Should be "Draft".
Why don't you make that edit, and we get this merged?
It is an important area for consideration.

[ghost]

@bobsummerwill to my understanding a WIP PR can be merged in that status as an ECIP as per ECIP-1000:

Draft ECIPs which may be in a very early stage may be entered as WIP ECIPs, which means they are a work in progress.

[bobsummerwill]

Right you are, @tokenhash! I was not aware of that status.
In that case, I see no reason why this should not be merged right now.

[BelfordZ]

needs 1 more editor approval, and I dont think self-approval is appropriate.

bump @whilei

[soc1c]

WIP shouldn't be merged as the P stands for progress. something in progress cannot be proposed. please proceed to draft stage once you want to propose something and are confident this is a good first draft.

[ghost]

@soc1c

WIP shouldn't be merged as the P stands for progress. something in progress cannot be proposed. please proceed to draft stage once you want to propose something and are confident this is a good first draft.

Makes sense. If that is the case, then I am going to adjust ECIP-0001 to show WIP can be entered as PRs, but can only advance to merged only if they are stable drafts.

[ghost]

@bobsummerwill @BelfordZ @soc1c I added/modified this text on ECIP-0001 to reflect the WIP rule:

Draft ECIPs which may be in a very early stage may be entered as WIP pull requests, which means they are a work in progress. However, WIP ECIP pull requests may not be merged into the ECIP repository unless authors feel confident enough about their proposals and moved them to Draft status.

[bobsummerwill]

LGTM

[bobsummerwill]

LGTM

[YazzyYaz]

I can approve it, but first it needs a License unless you specified it somewhere.

[BelfordZ]

isnt the default license of apache 2.0 assumed when no license is provided?

[meowsbits]

https://ecips.ethereumclassic.org/ECIPs/ecip-1000#ecip-licensing

Each new ECIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. ....

[meowsbits]

Suggested change

	created: 2019-12-20
	created: 2019-12-20
	license: Apache-2.0

[realcodywburns]

lgtm

[bobsummerwill]

"isnt the default license of apache 2.0 assumed when no license is provided?"

There is no default license.

We never added a root license. IP protection is still TODO.