config.json: review exercise difficulty/unlocks/ordering

[sjwarner-bp]

Massive config.json overhaul!

Quick review:

• exercises are listed in difficulty order, and then by alphabetical order
• reviewed difficulty - most exercises were 1 or 2, but this isn't reflective (in my opinion) of the exercises
• add/remove topics as appropriate (and per many open issues) and alphabetise them accordingly
• added a couple more core exercises (luhn, two-fer etc.) to more evenly distribute exercise unlock

Fixes #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67, #68, #69, #70, #71, #72, #73, #74, #75, #103, and #109

[sjwarner-bp]

I think this is pretty good - let me know what you think as soon as, and then we can re-assess where we are in terms of a launch 🎉 🎆

[budmc29]

My opinion on this is that we should get at least 2-3 opinions for each exercise regarding difficulty and topics, and when we reach something that looks like an agreement we can commit to those numbers/strings.

I'll give my suggestions in a few days if this is still open.

I don't see any harm in merging everything right now, but let's see what others think.

[budmc29]

Existing ratings (not including your commits):

hello-world = 1 1
two-fer = 1
armstrong-numbers = 3
error-handling = 1
hamming = 2
leap = 1 2
pangram = 2
raindrops = 1
rna-transcription = 2
anagram = 4
bob = 3 5
nucleotide-count = 2
phone-number = 2
word-count = 3 8
reverse-string = 1
difference-of-squares = 1
atbash-cipher = 5

gigasecond = 3 4 4

grains = ?
acronym = ?
collatz-conjencture = ?
triangle = ?
luhn = ?

[sjwarner-bp]

Why do some have more than one?

[budmc29]

Based on all the ratings, from other people that are on the existing opened PR.

[sjwarner-bp]

Ah OK cool, makes sense to me!

[budmc29]

Looks like we'll also have to wait before we agree on the core exercises as well in #109, before integrating this one.

[budmc29]

It might be work following the request from: exercism/ruby#689

If possible, leave 3 or 4 simple exercises as (core: false, unlocked_by: null), as this will provide new participants with some exercises that they can tackle even if they have not finished the first core exercise.

[sjwarner-bp]

Makes sense to me. Which few exercises do we think we should leave as (core: false, unlocked_by: null)? I'll then amend this and we can keep this up to date with all our latest thinking 🙂

I think two-fer could be a good candidate as it is quite basic and very similar to hello-world. bob can then be unlocked by a different core exercise.

[budmc29]

two-fer is good, and let's add error-handling for obvious reasons, and leap-year for some math and date manipulation.

[sjwarner-bp]

Cool, I'll change this PR to reflect those in a bit

[budmc29]

We should change this to 4.
We have the following scores: 2 3 4 4.

[sjwarner-bp]

Cool, I'll change that with the core: false and unlocked_by: null properties soon.

We want to keep this from going stagnant! 🙂

[budmc29]

With those changes and if we complete #109 , this is pretty much ready to be merged.

[sjwarner-bp]

I agree. I think that this is probably the largest thing stopping the track from being launched at this moment in time. I am not too sure what else needs to be done before then.

[sjwarner-bp]

I've altered the core exercises as in #109 and have made the changes discussed previously here too. Think this could be ready to merge.

[budmc29]

Yes, looks good. Thank you very much for your effort and patience on this one.