Some misc README cleanup

[lrettig]

Saving work in progress. Going to try to merge some in flight PRs and rebase against those.

[axic]

#96 was merged, please rebase.

[lrettig]

This is ready to go but will likely conflict with #115

[axic]

Rebased - because it was hard to follow what is going on with merge commits.

[lrettig]

From my perspective this is ready to merge, @axic ?

[lrettig]

Is this ready to go? Ping

[chfast]

Squash?

[axic]

I'm not sure why wagon was moved out of the main doc.

[lrettig]

I'm not sure why wagon was moved out of the main doc.

I moved it into a side doc because it's not ready for production yet. I did the same thing for aleth. Would prefer to keep the master doc as focused and simple as possible. @axic is there a reason you want it in the main doc?

[axic]

I've pulled out two major changes from here and merged them separately.

is there a reason you want it in the main doc?

Wagon is ready and passing the tests (as of yesterday). It is planned to be the main client for 2nd milestone. Don't wanna move it back and forth.

[lrettig]

Then can we remove the part that says "this spec may be wrong and will change"?

…

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 14:47, Alex Beregszaszi ***@***.***> wrote: I've pulled out two major changes from here and merged them separately. is there a reason you want it in the main doc? Wagon is ready and passing the tests (as of yesterday). It is planned to be the main client for 2nd milestone. Don't wanna move it back and forth. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#102 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADKbNHe942084yOFpXRkHMAigiMozdPGks5uy_7ogaJpZM4YcD7o> .

[axic]

@gballet is wagon working now properly? Can we remove the warning?

[axic]

@gballet ping #102 (comment)

[gballet]

@axic wagon is working with some issue that I found, need to create the PR for the fix and have them integrate them.

Old review.

[axic]

Why is it better to split these two instructions? It seems weird that this block only contains extra options.

[lrettig]

Are you referring to the geth configuration specified at line 174? Because there's a difference between running a node locally and running a node that syncs the testnet -- these additional commands are intended for testnet syncing. (Though I think --etherbase could be removed)

[axic]

What is the use of "running a node locally" without connecting to the testnet?

FYI running the node locally can be done in "test" mode which avoids 90% of the commandline options.

[lrettig]

What is the use of "running a node locally" without connecting to the testnet?

Local development.

FYI running the node locally can be done in "test" mode which avoids 90% of the commandline options.

Okay. Presumably we still need the --vm.ewasm flag but not the RPC-related ones?

[lrettig]

Did you remove the assemblyscript docs via force push? 😑

[axic]

Did you remove the assemblyscript docs via force push? 😑

Didn't remove any assemblyscript docs.

[lrettig]

Can we just merge this, then update the wagon stuff later as necessary?

[axic]

Can we just merge this, then update the wagon stuff later as necessary?

There is little point applying all these wagon changes from this PR if we need to roll it back 100%. Wagon just works.

[lrettig]

It would be great to get this merged, and iterate. There's a bunch of confusing/misleading stuff in the master doc right now that this fixes.

[axic]

There's a bunch of confusing/misleading stuff in the master doc right now that this fixes.

Can you please list what is this fixing? The C++/Rust swap is not relevant anymore, Wagon is not experimental anymore.

[lrettig]

This PR is not about C++/Rust or Wagon. It's about misc doc cleanup. The bulk of these changes are still relevant. Is there some specific concern here? If not, can we merge and iterate?