A.) While our group was very successful, I feel that our GitHub workflow could have been much better. We paired on most of our project, so documenting was not our priority. It was rare for us to have multiple branches with different features in play, so sometimes we wouldn't even commit at the end of a session. This meant that if there was code on a partner's computer but not on git, the other partner would not have access to it over the night. This issue also prevented us from keeping true record of our process. Commits would have messages that were long and undescriptive of the changes that we made. Moving forward, I would place a heavier emphasis on commits, branch management and version control.
B.) My role was to lead the broader concepts and design of the project. I really enjoyed making the connections between the objects and using these links to extract information. I did much of the typing for the project, which means that I also did most of the typos.
C.) My partner was strongest in the technical implementation of the broader ideas. He was great at implementing the statistics, enumberables and more challenging computations. Frequently, I would be describing something in English and he would have already implemented it in Ruby.
D.) I think that more patience on my part would have led to a more collaborative approach. Occasionally, I would become frustrated while trying to explain a big idea. I think if I could come into more situations without the assumption that I was right, we could have avoided some unproductive converstations that we had.