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

docs: add Portal Loop concept page #1582

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Feb 22, 2024
Merged

Conversation

leohhhn
Copy link
Contributor

@leohhhn leohhhn commented Jan 24, 2024

Description

This PR adds the Portal Loop concept page to the docs.
I propose we hold on merging this until gno.land is live.

EDIT: Portal Loop is live on gno.land so we can merge this PR.

Contributors' checklist...
  • Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
  • Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
  • Updated the official documentation or not needed
  • No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
  • Added references to related issues and PRs
  • Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
  • Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

@leohhhn leohhhn requested a review from a team as a code owner January 24, 2024 23:44
@leohhhn leohhhn added the 📖 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jan 26, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the 📖 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jan 26, 2024
@leohhhn leohhhn added don't merge Please don't merge this functionality temporarily 📖 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation labels Jan 26, 2024
@leohhhn
Copy link
Contributor Author

leohhhn commented Jan 26, 2024

Should we add a note on decentralization? ie, Portal loop is, in the end, just a single node now, and is not really decentralized. For permanence & decentralization, use main.gno.land?
Not sure if we will receive pushback because "its not decentralized".
@moul @thehowl

@thehowl
Copy link
Member

thehowl commented Jan 29, 2024

Not sure if we will receive pushback because "its not decentralized".

It's hard to make a "rolling testnet" like this decentralised. Not impossible, but it's already a feat as-is without considering multi nodes.

The portal loop is not a mainnet and we don't advertise it as such. It is a rolling testnet to develop Gno smart contracts that allows not falling behind on core developments as they are being made. test4, in this sense, is much closer to the notion of a testnet that can be decentralised. Likely going to be the devops focus after we finish working on the portal loop. So if somebody's annoyed at this, you can tell them to wait for test4.


More philosophically, if anybody complains that "it's not decentralised" my answer is you don't have to wait for the core team to get around to decentralising it. I know I'm a broken record on this but really open source projects have lived long past their original maintainers or companies supporting them simply by having people who cared, who took the original project source and improved it. So if you care about Gno and making its testnet decentralised, you study how you can decentralise it, propose a solution and try to do it. It's close to impossible that any reasonably made proposal for it gets seriously opposed. If you don't care enough to do all of that, then you can stay on Twitter.

This goes for 99% of "won't people complain" concerns. If they complain, tell them to get to code. If they don't know how to code, tell them to learn. Programming is the #1 topic with the most learning resources on the internet, and I learned nothing of what I know about programming through formal (uni) education or personal acquaintances.

@leohhhn
Copy link
Contributor Author

leohhhn commented Jan 29, 2024

@thehowl

Fully agree with you, I just wanted to ask opinions on how to advertise it, since this docs page will be a source of truth, and we don't really advertise the Portal Loop anywhere else (except maybe the dev calls). This is why I think it is good to have a note on this within the page :)

I'm assuming most people won't even realize gno.land is actually the Portal Loop when it's live, unless they go to the docs and read about it.

@leohhhn leohhhn requested a review from a team as a code owner January 29, 2024 21:00
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the 📖 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jan 29, 2024
@leohhhn leohhhn added 📖 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation and removed don't merge Please don't merge this functionality temporarily labels Feb 21, 2024
Copy link
Member

@zivkovicmilos zivkovicmilos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good 💯

@leohhhn leohhhn merged commit 32dcedc into gnolang:master Feb 22, 2024
5 of 6 checks passed
@leohhhn leohhhn deleted the docs/portal-loop branch February 22, 2024 12:05
leohhhn added a commit to leohhhn/gno that referenced this pull request Feb 29, 2024
## Description

This PR adds the Portal Loop concept page to the docs.
I propose we hold on merging this until `gno.land` is live.

EDIT: Portal Loop is live on [gno.land](https://gno.land) so we can
merge this PR.

<details><summary>Contributors' checklist...</summary>

- [x] Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
- [x] Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is
self-explanatory
- [x] Updated the official documentation or not needed
- [x] No breaking changes were made, or a `BREAKING CHANGE: xxx` message
was included in the description
- [x] Added references to related issues and PRs
- [x] Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
- [ ] Added new benchmarks to [generated
graphs](https://gnoland.github.io/benchmarks), if any. More info
[here](https://github.com/gnolang/gno/blob/master/.benchmarks/README.md).
</details>
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
Projects
Status: Done
Status: Done
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants