RFC: optional RFC section for Spec changes #52
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Zander Mackie <zmackie@gmail.com>
zmackie
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Zander Mackie <zmackie@gmail.com>
| + # Spec. Changes (OPTIONAL) | ||
| + [spec-changes]: #spec-changes | ||
| + | ||
| + Does this RFC entail any proposed changes to the specifications (either buildpack or platform) or extensions? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| + Does this RFC entail any proposed changes to the specifications (either buildpack or platform) or extensions? | |
| + Does this RFC entail any proposed changes to the specifications or extensions? |
Distribution too. Might as not provide a comprehensive list for the sake of future proofing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree being more general here would be good to future-proof.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about something like a checklist? This would help people easily think through all the potential candidates. Some changes apply to multiple specs.
If this RFC proposes changes to a specification, what specification?
- [ ] platform
- [ ] buildpack
- [ ] distribution
- [ ] extension: ___________
| + | ||
| + Does this RFC entail any proposed changes to the specifications (either buildpack or platform) or extensions? | ||
| + This section is not intended to be binding, but as discussion of an RFC unfolds, if spec changes are necessary, they should be documented here. | ||
| + |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be nice to provide some examples here to help folks who are less familiar with the spec start to consider this question: new lifecycle flags, new buildpack.toml fields, new fields in the buildpackage label etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be nice to provide some examples here to help folks who are less familiar with the spec start to consider this question: new lifecycle flags, new buildpack.toml fields, new fields in the buildpackage label etc.
Agree that examples would be helpful, will add. However, I don't think the message here is that the onus is necessarily on the RFC opener, at least initially, to add to this section. My thinking was that if an RFC evolved to a place where spec changes where necessary, a reviewer should call that out and the author would add it on when they received that feedback.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we get the examples added here?
| # Prior Art | ||
| [prior-art]: #prior-art | ||
|
|
||
| Not sure |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe the alternative (Do Nothing) would be for RFC authors to debate spec changes after a RFC gets accepted inside the spec PR which is where we are today.
| # Alternatives | ||
| [alternatives]: #alternatives | ||
|
|
||
| - Summarize the discussion in a comment. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we could also put the spec changes (as described herein) under "How It Works" without requiring a new section. I feel like this might make the template more approachable for those who don't know the spec well enough, but have a good RFC otherwise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem this aims to solve is that we had that before and not one of us twigged that there should have been a spec change paragraph. That seems to indicate that the status quo has an issue.
[resolves buildpacks#52] Signed-off-by: Ben Hale <bhale@pivotal.io>
readable
Signed-off-by: Zander Mackie zmackie@gmail.com