-
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
Add Author to RFC Metadata #64
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 +1,60 @@ | ||
# Meta | ||
[meta]: #meta | ||
- Name: Add Author to RFC Metadata | ||
- Start Date: 2020-03-14 | ||
- CNB Pull Request: https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/64 | ||
- CNB Issue: (leave blank) | ||
- Supersedes: (put "N/A" unless this replaces an existing RFC, then link to that RFC) | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
[summary]: #summary | ||
|
||
This is a proposal to add an `Author(s):` field to the `Meta` section of the RFC template. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
[motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
||
When an RFC is merged, and then renamed, the commit history is lost. This makes it difficult to remember who wrote the RFC. Sometimes, an RFC is written by more than one person, but the linked PR will not always show this. | ||
|
||
# What it is | ||
[what-it-is]: #what-it-is | ||
|
||
A new `Author(s):` field in the Meta section of the RFC template. | ||
|
||
# How it Works | ||
[how-it-works]: #how-it-works | ||
|
||
We will add the following to the RFC `Meta` section: | ||
|
||
``` | ||
- Author(s): (Github usernames) | ||
- RFC Pull Request: (leave blank) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks | ||
|
||
Even though the author will be know, the commit history is still hard to find. | ||
|
||
# Alternatives | ||
[alternatives]: #alternatives | ||
|
||
## RFC PR Link | ||
|
||
Instead of an author field, we could only enforce that a link to the original RFC PR be added to the RFC after it's merged. This would make it easier to find the author and the history, but we would need to ensure that all authors are represented in the PR. | ||
|
||
# Prior Art | ||
[prior-art]: #prior-art | ||
|
||
- Rust uses an ["RFC PR" link](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/0000-template.md) | ||
- TensorFlow has an ["Author(s)" field](https://github.com/tensorflow/community/blob/master/rfcs/yyyymmdd-rfc-template.md) | ||
|
||
# Unresolved Questions | ||
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
||
- Does this make it look like only a few person contributed to the RFC (when in reality they are a collaborative process)? | ||
|
||
# Spec. Changes (OPTIONAL) | ||
[spec-changes]: #spec-changes | ||
|
||
None |
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.
Maybe, but with the easy access to the discussion you can always check the history. We could also encourage / welcome more folks to the RFC process. :)