Update EIP-1: Strengthen wording of status update PRs

[Pandapip1]

Why stick to final EIPs? It makes sense to require this for all status changes.

Why use SHOULD when we can use MUST?

Requiring the latest version of an EIP to review seems like a pretty obvious request.

[eth-bot]

File EIPS/eip-1.md

Requires 2 more reviewers from @axic, @gcolvin, @lightclient, @SamWilsn

[g11tech]

sounds fine to me

[SamWilsn]

I am rather torn about this. I like being able to see my comments and suggestions applied to the same PR that I made them on. Makes it easier to track progress.

I'd be less opposed if we can enforce that the PR's "Files Changed" tab shows the most recent version in master with the status change diff. I think that's the intent of:

When the content of an EIP changes, the git branch of any PR that changes the status of that EIP MUST be updated to reflect the current version.

Is it easy to automatically enforce this rule? I think there's an option in GitHub to require PRs be up-to-date, but that would require all PRs follow that rule.

[g11tech]

I'd be less opposed if we can enforce that the PR's "Files Changed" tab shows the most recent version in master with the status change diff. I think that's the intent of:

I think thats how it normally works, the target/master branch gets auto updated if something is merged (and if there are conflicts they show up)

Is it easy to automatically enforce this rule? I think there's an option in GitHub to require PRs be up-to-date, but that would require all PRs follow that rule.

i think yes, for e.g. in ethereumjs repo we follow similar rule, however github also shows up with a button to rebase the PR with latest target/master at which then the PR becomes mergable

[g11tech]

lgtm!

[Pandapip1]

I think there's an option in GitHub to require PRs be up-to-date, but that would require all PRs follow that rule.

It's easy to use the API to automatically rebase relevant PRs on push to the EIPs repository.

The only reason I am hesitant to use rebases as opposed to merges is that it requires a force pull, which makes me very unhappy.

[g11tech]

i think auto magic could be very non intutive to the author who might want to pull/push exactly for the reasons that you mentioned.
However a force push and update by author(s) of PR is still ok and is not really a big ask.

We just need to block the PRs saying they need rebase as the PR is out of touch, this should also provide a signal to the author to re-review (or may be we can explicitly ask the author to rebase and review)

[github-actions]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[github-actions]

This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment.