Doc: Proposed RFC Github issue template #3164
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
andy-k-improving
requested review from
ps48,
kavithacm,
derek-ho,
joshuali925,
dai-chen,
YANG-DB,
mengweieric,
vamsimanohar,
Swiddis,
penghuo,
seankao-az,
MaxKsyunz,
Yury-Fridlyand,
anirudha,
forestmvey,
acarbonetto,
GumpacG,
ykmr1224,
LantaoJin and
noCharger
as code owners
YANG-DB
previously approved these changes
Nov 28, 2024
|
@acarbonetto can you please review ? |
Swiddis
reviewed
Dec 24, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: I'd like to see more room for discussing alternative solutions from an RFC process
This seems to more-or-less be focused on writing extensive implementation details on a suggested solution (by requiring API design) but doesn't include a dedicated section for discussing alternatives. There probably should also be a place to discuss non-functional requirements (long-term goals, cost, security, resources, latency).
My instinct is,
- Move "API Design" to the end and call it "Implementation Discussion" to make it more generally applicable
- Add a dedicated section for Alternatives after Approach (maybe replace "Known Limitations" since that's the natural place to discuss pros/cons anyways?)
- Add a "Long-Term Goals" section after discussing the Current State, which can make it easier to review the actual requirements for the solution, and do the sanity "does the solution solve the problem"-check
Signed-off-by: Andy Kwok <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andy Kwok <[email protected]>
andy-k-improving
force-pushed
the
ft-hf-bq-rfc-skeleton
branch
from
d13c4be to
6fdf5f2
Compare
|
@Swiddis Appreciate the comments! |
Swiddis
previously approved these changes
Jan 6, 2025
Signed-off-by: Andy Kwok <[email protected]>
|
@YANG-DB would you mind to have another look? |
YANG-DB
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Aim to provide a handy Github issue template for RFC, in order to standardize the existing feature intake process, to encourage contributors to submit a RFC when doing any major feature to get the consent / alignment from the community, in order to lower the risk / complexity of the implementation.
Existing Github template:
Related Issues
N/A
Check List
--signoff.By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.