search

GlacierProtocol / glacierprotocol.github.io

the source for https://glacierprotocol.org
28 stars 26 forks source link

General rework #17

Open GraniteKeep opened 5 years ago

GraniteKeep commented 5 years ago

Minor restructure in layout and sentence structure

bitcoinhodler commented 5 years ago

@GraniteKeep this has gone way beyond a "Minor restructure in layout and sentence structure" to include substantial changes to the document. Glacier was developed with careful review and as of v0.91 many people had read and executed the protocol successfully. This level of change will require equally thorough review. I don't expect the current maintainers will be open to such a review.

I do think your changes are mostly positive and moving in the right direction. I don't want to discourage you except to say that a proper and thorough review will take a long time and must include someone going through the final PDF step by step executing the protocol as if for the first time.

I am planning such a review myself, once the PDF reaches a good state again after #13. (Currently IMO the PDF is in an unacceptably bad state not even worthy of thorough review.)

I would encourage you to submit a few small PRs for the more serious issues you have identified and cleaned up (like the official Ubuntu SHA link). Those can be merged quickly.

I have done a cursory review (looking only at diffs in Github, not the formatted doc) through 027bfd232e8a136182dec1d261ac15af4992c2eb and might continue beyond that soon.

GraniteKeep commented 5 years ago

Thanks for the heads-up, @bitcoinhodler.

@jacoblyles, @diogomonica, @jhogan4288, am I doing work that isn't required? Although I've been very careful not to alter the process, I've been going through the protocol document looking for inconsistencies in formatting, wording, etc; fleshing out certain explanations, trying to simplify some of the more complex statements (in terms of wording), introducing sub-headings in the large numbered lists for readability, correcting section references, and weeding out dead links.

I've tried to be quite granular in my commits, with comments as descriptive as the character limit allows. This has resulted in a large number of changes, but the rendered document/website should be cleaner and a bit easier to read.

jhogan4288 commented 5 years ago

Hi @GraniteKeep -- I'm no longer involved in maintenance of Glacier, so will defer to the others. But thank you on behalf of the community for your efforts!

GraniteKeep commented 5 years ago

Ok, I'll have to assume there is no appetite for this kind of update just now. There'll be a lot of work to get the presentation/readability up to the quality of, say, CCSS (the institutional equivalent to Glacier) so I'll leave what I've done if anyone wants a headstart at a later date.

Thanks to @bitcoinhodler for the review work done. If you continue any further, the value of the presentation changes are a lot easier to see looking at the rendered PDF/webpages side-by-side.

bitcoinhodler commented 5 years ago

It's a shame, but the official maintainers are AWOL, and have been since they took over from the original developers. We are looking for new public maintainers.

diogomonica commented 5 years ago

@GraniteKeep thanks for the rework. There is definitely appetite for improvements, just not a lot of time for review. We added a few folks from Casa, but they haven't started contributing. We're also looking for other public maintainers.

jlopp commented 4 years ago

@GraniteKeep Please rebase to resolve the conflicts and I'll review