Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 8, 2024. It is now read-only.

I would include a function to update the flip of an ilk #4

Open
gbalabasquer opened this issue Jun 17, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

I would include a function to update the flip of an ilk #4

gbalabasquer opened this issue Jun 17, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@gbalabasquer
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@brianmcmichael
Copy link
Contributor

@gbalabasquer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oh ok, however, from the cat anyone could still update the flipper of an ilk, same for join, although in this last case in theory you could have more than one adapter for ilk, but let's think that is not possible for now.

I'd see more useful the admin could actually replace the main contracts like vow, cat, end. Are we finally planning to make governance the owner of this?

@brianmcmichael
Copy link
Contributor

I figured in the case where we modified the core contracts we would probably want to re-deploy the registry entirely.

I'm actually not convinced that the file operations are better than the removal and re-issuance of an ilk, but added the authed removal in case something unforeseen went fubar in the contract.

The plan was to have the pauseProxy be a ward on the contract in case governance wanted to make edits, but we could maintain an admin key for this in the short term as well. Open to suggestions on the best approach.

@gbalabasquer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hmmm ok, so the premise is if any of the core contracts change, the ilk registry will be redeployed. I'm fine with it.
About flip and pip I don't think we need any admin function. spotter and cat define just one only contract for them, so we should take that param to get them updated. I'd leave a public function that checks that and updates the registry if necessary for those values.
Regarding join I'd honestly prefer to not have admin forcing anything either, in general an old adapter will be caged and the new one could be updated by anyone. But if you still prefer to have it I'd have a function where admin can force the update without removing the ilk.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants