+1 I have a couple of comments.
1. Let's use increasing numbers for RFC identification. First RFC will be 1, second - 2 and so on. 2. RFC MUST NOT Have ticket link as required element. Moreover, I think ticket links must be omitted when possible. 3. We must have RFC-0 to fix RFC structure. пт, 23 окт. 2026 г. в 21:59, Anton Vinogradov <[email protected]>: > > Hi all, > > Following our discussion [1] and today's call, I'd like to put the > following proposal to a vote. > > Let's use RFCs for public API changes, keeping them as Markdown files in > the Ignite repository and reviewing them through pull requests instead of > creating IEPs. Apache Hudi [2] and TiDB [3] are good examples of this > approach. > > Changes to the public API would need to be covered by an RFC approved by at > least three Ignite committers before the code is merged. > > The first RFC will define what we consider the public API and how the > process works in detail. We'll discuss and approve that separately; this > vote is about agreeing on the approach and the three-committer requirement. > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 — Agree > [ ] 0 — Neutral > [ ] -1 — Disagree (please explain) > > Thanks! > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/cfrpdv9t8dq05ghc7dyjppst4m7nd28f > [2] https://hudi.apache.org/contribute/rfc-process/ > [3] https://github.com/pingcap/tidb/blob/master/docs/design/README.md
