Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/LukeShu/leaguer

1 files changed, 38 insertions, 21 deletions

diff --git a/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md b/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md
index 38d3a88..ece8c85 100644
--- a/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md
+++ b/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ has been an impressive journey.
 
 The entire team became familiar with deploying Rails in our rather
 diverse working environments and successfully deployed a server
-instance located at demo.projectleaguer.net.
+instance located at demo.projectleaguer.net as well as on our local boxes.
 
 ## Login (back-end) {#login-backend}
 
@@ -109,9 +109,23 @@ designations (although for the demo some of the hooks were not in
 place, this has been fixed).
 
 ## Tournament settings {#tourney-settings}
+<<<<<<< HEAD
+
+Tournament settings were implemented at a basic level, instituting those
+items which are similar to all tournaments, regardless of type, orginating
+from the game model.
+
+=======
   
+>>>>>>> 5f96d780def7c33a6d6e452b558ac136ee4d06bc
 ## Tournament registration {#tourney-registration}
 
+Tournament registration and the tournament contoller were completed which
+allowed users to join and participate in basic tournaments of several types.
+The tournament controller handled a variety of tournament related tasks,
+including creating and updating tournaments and validating tournament related
+operations.
+
 ## Match controller {#match-controller}
 
 The Match Controller creates the separate matches for a specific tournament.
@@ -157,12 +171,7 @@ only had it working where the tournament host would decide who won.
 
 ## Server management {#srv-man}
 
-The server management software interface is implemented, and working
-fine.  The other modules use it.  However, what we didn't implement is
-an actual *page* to edit these settings.  We had this task in the
-iteration because other items depended on it.  Though we did not
-implement the full story, we implemented the core reason that we
-wanted it.
+
 
 # Not implemented
 
@@ -178,20 +187,28 @@ It was decided to not be a priority for sprint one due to time constraints.
 Also, we want to implement data entry for League of Legends through 
 Riot Games (TM)'s API for grabbing match data.
 
-# End
+# How to improve
+
+Peer reviews and testing were our biggest pitfalls.
+
 
-1. Each task must be mentioned under the right category (implemented
-   and working, implemented but did not work well, or not implemented
-   and the team must mention why/how it worked or why/how did not
-   work: 3.5 points ( - 1.0) for each unmentioned task, ( - 0.5) for
-   each task that is not properly described or placed under the wrong
-   category.
+1. All testing was just manual, in-browser testing, rather than unit
+   tests.  We really need write unit tests this iteration, as we had
+   breakages where we said "this is exactly why we need unit
+   testing."  However, that happened late enough in the iteration that
+   we didn't have time to do anything about it.
 
-2. How to improve: Please mention at least 3 ways  about  how to
-   improve your work.  - 0.5 for each  missing point. (Total: 1.5
-   points)
+2. That leads us into time management. Our commit activity plotted
+   against time has humps each weak, each growing a little.  That is,
+   we started slow, and ended with a lot of work.  This wasn't exactly
+   poor planing, but we had a poor idea of how much time things would
+   take.  We plan to fix this by front-loading this iteration instead
+   of back-loading it.
 
-3. For the tasks that were not implemented or did not work well, the
-   team should implement or fix these as necessary in the next
-   Sprint. We will use this Retrospective document in the next Demo
-   Meeting.
+3. We had the approach of "show everyone everything" with peer
+   reviews, as we anticipated that this would be nescessary for
+   everyone learning Rails.  However, in effect it meant that
+   sometimes information was spread very thin, or because things were
+   being done "in the open", we didn't ever explicitly review them.
+   We plan on fixing this next iteration by committing to do very
+   specific peer reviews with just a couple members of the team.