Igniters, I think, our community have accumulated enough experience with the process of Ignite Enhancement Proposal (IEP) of introducing the major changes into the Apache Ignite. Now we have to take one step forward and make every major change and\or improvement clear not only for community developers but also for the Apache Ignite users too.
Currently, I've seen two different strategies with creating IEPs: - Single IEP per single major improvement; - Single IEP per unit of functionality (group a few major improvements); Both of them have different advantages and disadvantages. Let's remove the ambiguity and build a convenient working process. For example, we may consider the best practices used in other open-source projects [2] [3]. I propose to (and also propose to update the corresponding wiki page [1] and our community processes): - use to "Single IEP per single major improvement" approach; - do not group the major enhancements into the single IEP; - avoid inaccurate proposal names (e.g. optimization, improvement, stabilization of etc.); - for any public API changes create the IEP; - add a `compatibility\mirgration` section to IEP Template; - add a `public API changes` section to the IEP Template; - link each major release note with the corresponding IEP page (users will have a better understanding of each feature). Igniters, please, share your thoughts. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Ignite+Enhancement+Proposal [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SAMZA/Samza+Enhancement+Proposal
