Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: consider splitting consensus nodes into 2 pages again #1428

Closed
jcstein opened this issue Feb 20, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #1472
Closed

feat: consider splitting consensus nodes into 2 pages again #1428

jcstein opened this issue Feb 20, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #1472
Assignees
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@jcstein
Copy link
Member

jcstein commented Feb 20, 2024

would revert #1107

@mindstyle85
Copy link
Collaborator

comment for the full consensus page:

  • its too crowded as is, i propose the validator part is a subsection of the full consensus node
  • the validator part should start first with validator registration and only afterwards with those delegation commands that are the first thing in the validator section now (obv have to create validator first before they can delegate)
  • the bridge node part can still be in the validator section, just so that we can push it still for them to run it

@jcstein
Copy link
Member Author

jcstein commented Mar 4, 2024

based on your feedback, it sounds like this should still be 1 page? or is it better as 2?

@mindstyle85
Copy link
Collaborator

based on your feedback, it sounds like this should still be 1 page? or is it better as 2?

no, separate page, eg same like we have for Data Availability - light node or bridge node or full storage node

here maybe we can have:

  • Consensus
    • consensus full node
    • validator

@Mackenzie-OO7
Copy link
Contributor

Hii 👋🏾 @jcstein can I work on this?

@jcstein
Copy link
Member Author

jcstein commented Mar 9, 2024 via email

@Mackenzie-OO7
Copy link
Contributor

@jcstein in this PR, should I also update the links in the docs that point to the old page, or should I make a new PR particularly for that?

@jcstein
Copy link
Member Author

jcstein commented Mar 11, 2024

yep! let's do it all in this one. i'll work with you too and be reviewing it

@jcstein jcstein added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Mar 11, 2024
@Bidon15 Bidon15 added good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Mar 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants