-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: Sub Team Maintainer (formerly author) Creates Repo Issues #106
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
14ff589
Add Create Repo Issues RFC
dfreilich 567b5fc
Change from Author to Sub Team Maintainers
dfreilich f257900
Add issue to metadata
dfreilich 5cc87b8
Add label per sub-team
dfreilich 4f8d453
Add link to github profile
dfreilich 1430a09
Update text/0000-create-repo-issues.md
dfreilich File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ | ||
# Meta | ||
[meta]: #meta | ||
- Name: Create Repo Issues | ||
- Start Date: 2020-08-06 | ||
- Author(s): @dfreilich | ||
- RFC Pull Request: (leave blank) | ||
- CNB Pull Request: (leave blank) | ||
- CNB Issue: (leave blank) | ||
- Supersedes: [#04](https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/blob/main/text/0004-rfc-process.md) (which was [rfc#7](https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/7)) | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
[summary]: #summary | ||
Once an RFC has been accepted, prior to it being merged in to the [RFC repo](http://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs), the appropriate sub-team maintainers should create issues in the relevant Buildpacks repositories, linking them to the RFC pull request (using [Github references](https://docs.github.com/en/github/writing-on-github/autolinked-references-and-urls#issues-and-pull-requests)) | ||
|
||
# Definitions | ||
[definitions]: #definitions | ||
|
||
* RFC → Request For Comments. It is the process followed by the Cloud Native Buildpacks project, as well as many other OSS ones, to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the spec, libraries, or tools, so that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction Cloud Native Buildpacks is evolving in. | ||
* FCP → Final Comment Period. This is step taken on a particular RFC when enough discussion of the tradeoffs have taken place and the team is in a position to make a decision. Before entering FCP, super majority of the team must sign off. | ||
* PR → (Github) Pull Request. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
[motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
||
As the number of RFCs increase, it has become increasingly hard to ensure that a given RFC has been implemented, or will be implemented. This RFC proposes an amendment to the [RFC process](https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs#rfc-process). | ||
|
||
The current RFC process [defines](https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs#rfc-process) that: | ||
> the team member who merges the pull request should do the following ... Create a corresponding issue in the appropriate repo. | ||
|
||
In practice, that adds extra work for the team member who merges in the PR, and it may slip through the cracks occasionally. Additionally, the sub-team maintainers are often the best people to create the issue, given their insight into how it should be implemented. | ||
|
||
As an additional consideration, it is often hard to track work from the RFC proposal to the implementation, and difficult to ensure that it was completed. If we use [Github references](https://docs.github.com/en/github/writing-on-github/autolinked-references-and-urls#issues-and-pull-requests) to link the RFC PR to the issue on the appropriate repository, we can better track the work, and be notified when it is fully implemented. | ||
|
||
# What it is | ||
[what-it-is]: #what-it-is | ||
This defines a process for sub-team maintainers to open issues on the relevant repositories, after FCP for the RFC concludes, before it is merged in. | ||
|
||
# How it Works | ||
[how-it-works]: #how-it-works | ||
When a PR has been accepted (after FCP has concluded), the sub-team maintainers make issues (tagging the RFC PR) in the relevant buildpack repos, and labels the PR `issues-created`. At that point, the RFC PR may be merged in. | ||
|
||
Given an RFC PR #002, which discusses a change relevant to the `pack CLI` to add in a `pack my-bags` command. After discussion in Working Group meetings and votes from the Core Team, the RFC is placed in FCP for 7 days. At the end of those, the platform maintainers should open an issue in the `pack CLI`, which tags the RFC PR. For example, | ||
|
||
``` | ||
### Description | ||
|
||
To enable easier traveling, we would like to add a `pack my-bags` command | ||
|
||
### Proposed solution | ||
This issue is a request to implement the proposed solution as detailed in #buildpacks/rfcs#002 | ||
|
||
### Additional context | ||
- This feature should be documented as part of standard pack CLI commands documentation. | ||
``` | ||
|
||
After creating the issue, the maintainer should add the label `issues-created` to the PR. Upon seeing that issue created, a member of the core team will merge it in. | ||
dfreilich marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks | ||
N/A | ||
|
||
![Sloth GIF](https://giphy.com/gifs/3NtY188QaxDdC) | ||
|
||
# Alternatives | ||
[alternatives]: #alternatives | ||
|
||
- What other designs have been considered? | ||
* Core member makes the issue(s) → This adds extra responsibility when merging issues | ||
* Author of the RFC → That was my initial suggestion, but there was a concern that it could make the RFC process less approachable for new contributors, and as a community-driver process, we should take steps to make our process friendly. | ||
* Anarchy | ||
|
||
# Prior Art | ||
[prior-art]: #prior-art | ||
|
||
- [LSST DM RFC Process](https://developer.lsst.io/v/DM-5063/processes/decision_process.html#adopting-an-rfc) → `When consensus is established the Assignee should create a set of tickets that specify the implementation work, and then mark the RFC as Adopted in JIRA.` | ||
- [Rust RFC Process](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs#implementing-an-rfc) → `Every accepted RFC has an associated issue tracking its implementation in the Rust repository; thus that associated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the team uses for all issues in the Rust repository.` | ||
- [EmberJS RFC Process](https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs#the-rfc-life-cycle) → `Once an RFC becomes active the relevant teams will plan the feature and create issues in the relevant repositories.` | ||
|
||
A number of other RFC processes don't define who creates the issues, though they do emphasize that while the author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it, a given RFC having been accepted implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it. | ||
Some of those include: | ||
* [GatsbyJS](https://github.com/gatsbyjs/gatsby/tree/master/rfcs#the-rfc-life-cycle) | ||
* [NixOS](https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs#the-rfc-life-cycle) | ||
* [Yarn](https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs#the-rfc-life-cycle) | ||
* [React](https://github.com/reactjs/rfcs/blob/master/README.md#the-rfc-life-cycle) | ||
|
||
[Swift](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md#preparing-an-implementation) requires that an RFC be coupled with a PR for its implementation. | ||
|
||
# Unresolved Questions | ||
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
||
# Spec. Changes (OPTIONAL) | ||
dfreilich marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
[spec-changes]: #spec-changes | ||
|
||
No. However, this RFC would entail a proposed change to the RFC process, as defined in the https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/blob/main/README.md. It would now read: | ||
|
||
Once an RFC has been accepted, (a) maintainer(s) from the relevant sub-team(s) should create (an) issue(s) in the relevant repositories to implement the RFC, [referencing](https://docs.github.com/en/github/writing-on-github/autolinked-references-and-urls#issues-and-pull-requests) the RFC PR. At that point, they should add the label `issues-created` to the RFC. | ||
|
||
Upon seeing the issue(s) created, the team member who merges the pull request should do the following: | ||
* Assign an id based off the pull request number. | ||
* Rename the file based off the id inside text/. | ||
* Create a corresponding issue in the appropriate repo. | ||
* Fill in the remaining metadata at the top. | ||
* Commit everything. |
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given that some sub-teams have multiple maintainers, there may still be some potential for ambiguity around who will handle a particular RFC. I propose that when we move RFCs into FCP we should assign a sub-team maintainer to the PR and they will be responsible for creating the issues.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ekcasey my thought is that this would happen during the weekly subteam meetings, but I don't feel strongly about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ekcasey I don't know whether we need that level of process at this point. I agree with @hone that I had felt it could be done during the subteam meetings, as one of the repeating action items. Should I clarify that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are some RFCs that require multiple sub-teams to create issues from a single RFC. For the sake of minimizing coordination could we maybe change this to be a label per subteam.
For example:
issues-created/platform
issues-created/implementation
If no issues need to be created for a given subteam they can add that label for brevity sake. We can further automate this process by checking that these labels are present.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I incorporated @jromero's feedback. LMK what you think.