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

Remove benchmarks code #386

Open
smol-ninja opened this issue Feb 5, 2025 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #393
Open

Remove benchmarks code #386

smol-ninja opened this issue Feb 5, 2025 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #393
Assignees
Labels
effort: medium Default level of effort. priority: 3 Nice-to-have. Willing to ship without this. type: chore Maintenance work. work: clear Sense-categorize-respond. The relationship between cause and effect is clear.

Comments

@smol-ninja
Copy link
Member

smol-ninja commented Feb 5, 2025

Now that we have a separate benchmarks repo that generate and store the gas table from the mainnet deployments. We can remove unneeded benchmark code from this repo.

@smol-ninja smol-ninja added effort: medium Default level of effort. priority: 3 Nice-to-have. Willing to ship without this. type: chore Maintenance work. work: clear Sense-categorize-respond. The relationship between cause and effect is clear. labels Feb 5, 2025
@PaulRBerg
Copy link
Member

This proliferation of repos makes me think that we should consider moving to a monorepo for the EVM contracts and adjacent utilities.

@smol-ninja
Copy link
Member Author

smol-ninja commented Feb 5, 2025

This proliferation of repos makes me think that we should consider moving to a monorepo for the EVM contracts and adjacent utilities.

The goal behind creating separate benchmarks and evm-utils repos is to reduce such common repeated work across all the repos. I don't think we would need to consider mono repo once we have integrated evm-utils and removed benchmarks code from these.

Moreover, evm-utils will have very low maintenance work while benchmarks will be updated only once per release, similar to docs.

@PaulRBerg
Copy link
Member

Alright

@andreivladbrg andreivladbrg self-assigned this Feb 13, 2025
@andreivladbrg andreivladbrg linked a pull request Feb 13, 2025 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
effort: medium Default level of effort. priority: 3 Nice-to-have. Willing to ship without this. type: chore Maintenance work. work: clear Sense-categorize-respond. The relationship between cause and effect is clear.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants