Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
94 lines (77 loc) · 4.51 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

94 lines (77 loc) · 4.51 KB
Raw

Seismometer RFCs

Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.

Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Seismometer core team.

The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.

When you need to follow this process

You need to follow this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to Seismometer libraries, dependencies, algorithms, or the RFC process itself. What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on community norms, but may include the following:

  • Significant updates to seismometer's internal implementation
  • New analysis templates
  • New dependencies
  • Removal of existing features

Some changes do not require an RFC:

  • Rephrasing, re-organizing, refactoring, or otherwise "changing shape does not change meaning"
  • Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality criteria (warning removal, speedup, etc.)
  • Additions only likely to be noticed by other developers-of-seismometer, invisible to users-of-seismometer

What the process is

In short, to get a major feature added to Seismometer, one usually first gets the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Seismometer.

  • Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/epic-open-source/seismometer-rfcs
  • Copy 0000-template.md to text/0000-my-feature.md (where 'my-feature' is descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet).
  • Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the impact of the design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to be poorly-received.
  • Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to revise it in response.
  • Now that your RFC has an open pull request, use the issue number of the PR to rename the file: update your 0000- prefix to that number. Also update the "RFC PR" link at the top of the file.
  • Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments.
  • Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate for inclusion in seismometer.
  • An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community. Significant modifications may trigger a new comment period.
  • An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of the team should then close the RFCs associated pull request.
  • An RFC may be accepted at the close of its comment period. A team member will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC will become 'active'.

The RFC lifecycle

Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the feature as a pull request to the Seismometer repo. Becoming 'active' is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle and are amenable to merging it.

Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is 'active' implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it.

Modifications to active RFCs can be done in follow-up PRs. We strive to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next major release; therefore we try to keep each RFC document somewhat in sync with the language feature as planned, tracking such changes via follow-up pull requests to the document.

Implementing an RFC

The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted.

If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 'active' RFC, but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).