Agenda: Development, May 28 2019

[lehnberg]

Solicit suggestions for agenda items for the Development meeting to be held on Tuesday May 28 @ 15:00 UTC in Grin/Dev Gitter. Please comment to provide topics or suggestions.

Proposed agenda

1. Igno's Retrospective
2. Agenda review
3. Action point follow ups from previous meetings
   • @lehnberg v1.1.0 communication?
   • @ignopeverell documentation of git branching model (linked to in CONTRIBUTING)?
   • @quentinlesceller status of CI:
     • libsecp?
     • grin-miner?
   • @tromp v2.0.0 CuckARoo write-up/PR
   • @jaspervdm bulletproof proposal
4. Security review status
5. Integration tests
6. Grin v1.1.0
7. Grin v1.1.x
8. Grin v2.0.0
   1. What will change?
   2. Will slates be invalidated after HF?
   3. Get rid of JSON slates?
9. Guidelines for how/when we communicate upcoming release and HF changes to the community
   • https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Release-planning
10. Other questions

[yeastplume]

as part of 2.0.0 discussion I think we collectively need to detail exactly what will change for the Hard fork. for instance, as part of: mimblewimble/grin-wallet#105, we need to know whether all slates will be invalidated after the HF.

[yeastplume]

Also would like to have a discussion on setting more explicit guidelines for how/when we communicate upcoming release and HF changes to the community, based on recent gitter discussions.

[mcdallas]

We should discuss if we want to get rid of json slates altogether in v2.0.0 in favor of a more compact encoding as @DavidBurkett suggested

[hashmap]

All integration tests are in grin-wallet now, it felt very insecure when a change in node api didn't fail tests, later on I realized that there were no tests for that anymore. Perhaps we need to move back at least some of them (or add as a submodule)

[0xmichalis]

Agreed with @hashmap, better to duplicate these tests across the two repos and start splitting out any wallet specific logic from the mimblewimble/grin tests, than keeping them only in grin-wallet.

[lehnberg]

Agenda proposal updated based on discussion

[jaspervdm]

Regarding item 8: we should also think about a timeline, something like: x weeks before the hard fork we need to have everything ready and tested, which means y weeks before we need to test the hard fork on floonet, which means all changes need to be specified and finalized z weeks in advance.