I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a note to dev@ to call that out.
I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value. Cheers, Adam > On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <gar...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know > what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's useful? > > So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we write an > RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from how > we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code > changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further from > the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should we > leave it at a certain point? > > I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the > high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we > continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature > that a lot of people want to be involved in the design. > > Cheers > Garren
