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

Improve the description of epoch end #534

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jun 4, 2024

Conversation

jancionear
Copy link
Contributor

The previous description of when an epoch ends was a bit confusing. It mentioned that two conditions are needed for a block to be the last block of an epoch, but in reality only one of them matters, as one condition is implied by the other. This makes the descripion harder to parse - why are there two conditions, if only one of them matters? It can lead to some confusion.

Let's improve the description to make it clearer and easier to understand. A diagram is also added for clarity.

Refs: zulip discussion

The previous description of when an epoch ends was a bit confusing.
It mentioned that two conditions are needed for a block to be the
last block of an epoch, but in reality only one of them matters,
as one condition is implied by the other. This makes the descripion
harder to parse - why are there two conditions, if only one of them
matters? It can lead to some confusion.

Let's improve the description to make it clearer and easier to understand.
A diagram is also added for clarity.

Refs: [zulip discussion](https://near.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/295558-pagoda.2Fcore/topic/When.20does.20an.20Epoch.20end.3F/near/422463251)
@jancionear jancionear requested a review from a team as a code owner February 21, 2024 00:31
@jancionear
Copy link
Contributor Author

jancionear commented Feb 21, 2024

It looks like the existing version of Epoch.md didn't pass the linter checks in the CI, so I fixed it.

The markdown-link-check fails because some links in unrelated files are throwing 404, I won't fix them as it's unrelated to this PR.

@frol frol added WG-protocol Protocol Standards Work Group should be accountable S-review/needs-sme-review A NEP in the REVIEW stage is waiting for Subject Matter Expert review. A-Nomicon-Changes An update to the Nomicon documentation. labels Feb 26, 2024
@frol
Copy link
Collaborator

frol commented Feb 26, 2024

@near/wg-protocol Could you, please, review the changes?

@frol frol requested a review from a team February 26, 2024 22:51
@jancionear
Copy link
Contributor Author

@near/wg-protocol Could you, please, review the changes?

I'd appreciate a review, the PR is over a month old.

Copy link
Member

@mfornet mfornet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

@jancionear, thanks for submitting this change. The diagram is quite helpful.

specs/BlockchainLayer/EpochManager/Epoch.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Marcelo Fornet <mfornet94@gmail.com>
@jancionear
Copy link
Contributor Author

Github says:

Code owner review required. Waiting on code owner review from near/nep-moderators

I guess it also needs a review from @near/nep-moderators before merging.

@bowenwang1996 bowenwang1996 enabled auto-merge (squash) May 20, 2024 17:59
@bowenwang1996
Copy link
Collaborator

@frol could you approve?

Copy link
Collaborator

@frol frol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry for the delay on my side.

@jancionear Thank you for the contribution and patience! 🙏

@bowenwang1996 bowenwang1996 merged commit 7afe606 into near:master Jun 4, 2024
4 of 5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-Nomicon-Changes An update to the Nomicon documentation. S-review/needs-sme-review A NEP in the REVIEW stage is waiting for Subject Matter Expert review. WG-protocol Protocol Standards Work Group should be accountable
Projects
Status: REVIEW
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants