mixmix
commented
2 weeks ago @vitropy are you leading this PR? Whoever leads it will like need to collaborate with you/ core/ js?
Checklist before this is ready:
- [ ] tests passing in CI
- [ ] review
Open vitropy opened 3 weeks ago
mixmix
commented
2 weeks ago @vitropy are you leading this PR? Whoever leads it will like need to collaborate with you/ core/ js?
Checklist before this is ready:
vitropy
commented
2 weeks ago @vitropy are you leading this PR?
I don't know what that means.
Currently the state of this PR is blocked by needing a new chain spec file that adds validators to a new chain spec file intended for the purpose of starting a genesis block on a chain with four validators or else the ability to programmatically add validators after initialization of the development network as discussed in your team's development channel. Neither of these are things I know how to do.
mixmix
commented
2 weeks ago @vitropy you opened this PR... but also Frankie committed to it.
What I was pointing to with the "leading this PR" request is that from prior experience on other teams, if it's unclear who is doing a task / is responsible for getting it done, then it is more inclined to slip through the cracks and get forgotten.
The culture I've found useful in the past is to make it clear who the leader / main backstop person is. We can make up whatever protocols we want of course!
What maybe I could have done is asked instead:
tone: not blaming, just seeking clarity, totally fine with you saying "I am handing this over", or sharing whatever your experience + culture/norms are
vitropy
commented
2 weeks ago @vitropy you opened this PR... but also Frankie committed to it.
Like most things, this is a collaborative effort. The effort's current status is described in the most recent comments; I've left a status update in my most recent comment.
What I was pointing to with the "leading this PR" request is that from prior experience on other teams, if it's unclear who is doing a task / is responsible for getting it done, then it is more inclined to slip through the cracks and get forgotten.
I think using the assignee field to communicate who is currently deemed responsible for moving the effort forward is a good practice.
* what is the state of this PR? (in-progress / old and should be closed / on hold / other)
See my most recent comment.
* if it's still in progress, who is progressing it?
The answer to this should be in the assignee field, IMHO. Currently it's just me. I'm okay with this but need support from @entropyxyz/core-developers at the moment, and I've put this on hold until I can coordinate a time with them in between my other issue and PR assignments.
If someone wants to jump in and help here, I think a sensible way to communicate that intent is to self-assign this PR.
* is there any support needed here?
Yes. Again, see my most recent comment.
JesseAbram
commented
2 weeks ago Created a chain type to support the docker file, I guess next steps here are to check (test this docker file)
mixmix
commented
1 week ago Like most things, this is a collaborative effort.
Yeah I know, just trying to figure out what our patterns of collaboration look like. I've been caught out before assuming "sensible process". e.g. Assignee field is a tool, AND not everyone uses it the same.
I think what you've proposed is good and clear.
I've added a little help by
main)I'll check in each week to see if there's anything that I can help with - you're assigned here but this is our lounge and want it to go well for you :heart:
mixmix
commented
5 days ago Changes in core, need to work on getting the RC of core 0.2.0 tested, deployed and a new release of SDK which uses that
Seems healthy? I'm not sure how to assign a validator to a signing group but I don't think we did anything special to make that happen with a two-node setup or if that's required with this one. The logs do look healthy, though. Examine the logs with a command such as this:
Use this file in CI or in your workflow with a command like: