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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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: optional RFC section for Spec changes #52
RFC: optional RFC section for Spec changes #52
Changes from 1 commit
63f2974
af2c69a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we get the examples added here?
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 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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
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 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.