Rholang Sprint 2 Retrospective


What did we do well?


What should we have done better?

  • Medha Parlikar (Unlicensed): Let's include comments for our reviewer when our PR is ready for them to review again.   Replying to comments isn't enough.  
  • Medha Parlikar (Unlicensed)Kyle Butt completed a lot of work, but the work wasn't captured in tickets.  
  • Kyle Butt: I could have done better making sure that everyone knew what it was I wanted implemented.
  • Joseph Denman - reviewing peer documents is something we need to make a priority. We need to pay close attention to artifacts that require review.  

Entry Notes:

Joseph Denman: 

RHOL-119 - Evaluator for Normalized terms.  Joe to follow up with Medha - Focus on the interpreter. - Wants a PR.  Joe will update the existing interpreter documentation.

  • Need a counter / context (scope) - We need rules at the Rholang source & then implement them.  The hard part is to for which contract the OpCode is running.  There is no notion of which contract is running at the opcode level. 
    • Context is treated like threads, when a context is created it's like a thread and it has a parent. 
    • What happens when a context is serialized
  • Context modeling for a future sprint.


Michael Birch 

  • RHOL-172 - Michael's intention is to write the state out in Rholang.  Having the requirements written down separately will help him.  Needing to change the requirements will make it clear.   Medha wants to make the document a priority.  Lock down the requirements first, translate into tickets for implementation in Rholang, and then implement change management.
  • Need requirements for the Rev system contract nailed down.  Need this done for Proof of Stake.  Build the bonding and unbonding over it. 


Kyle Butt:

  • Normalization & helping others with parts.

Kent:

  • Working on sorting
  • Working on Rev contract with Michael Birch


Action Items