You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 18, 2021. It is now read-only.
Request: can we try moving away from the "Hard fork" terminology? It's a protocol ugrade. If it results in a contentious fork then we can retrospectively refer to it as a fork. But for non-contentious stuff, I'd much prefer to normalise the use of "upgrade" rather than the very loaded and much misunderstood "hard fork".
Yeah, I know that we have "Fork" terminology in the spec, but this is more about public messaging.
(No doubt I'm whistling in the wind here, but this seems to be an opportunity to try setting some new norms.)
can we try moving away from the "Hard fork" terminology?
We probably don't have enough time on this call, but I wish we can brainstorm a great versioning theme and a cool release name for the next mainnet consensus upgrade soon. :)
Eth2 Call 55 Agenda
call 54
Meeting Date/Time: Thursday 2021/01/14 at 14:00 GMT
Meeting Duration 1.5 hours
Livestream Link
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: