Alright, I would up just opening the blueprint as a blueprint PR instead of making it an issue. It's never too late to change that, so I figured why not. Its PR # (https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/pull/6180). I also opened https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/issues/6183 and https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/issues/6182 which all together should encompass the information expressed in the wiki page. People passionate about that page and its preservation should make sure it's all represented before I turn it into a link on, say, next Tuesday morning. Note that the edit history will preserve the contents after link-ification, so even if something slips through the cracks it won't be lost forever.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:40 PM ocket 8888 <ocket8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On further investigation into works in progress and design issues open, > it's possible that the entire page could just become a link to > https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/projects/7 - but new issues will > need to be opened and added to that project to fully capture the > information of the wiki page. Seems like that might be the way to go > instead. I actually already finished writing up one of the three > blueprints, which can probably be almost literally copy/pasted into an > Issue body. > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:09 AM ocket 8888 <ocket8...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Two of these three pages have blueprint equivalents: >> >> - Cache-Side Config Generation can be a link to >> https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/blob/master/blueprints/ort-rewrite-unix-style.md >> - Layered Profiles can be a link to >> https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/pull/6095 (possibly updated to >> https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/blob/master/blueprints/layered-profile.md >> if/when merged) >> >> Self-Service Change Integrity is a bit harder. It's not only just not >> already a blueprint, but the information in the page arguably accounts for >> more than ought to be covered by a single blueprint. Ideally, each of the >> three changes the page argues for should, in my opinion, be its own >> blueprint. What I propose, therefore, is doing exactly that. Opening three >> blueprint PRs to account for the page's contents. These need not be merged. >> >> While I do volunteer to make the blueprints, that could be a little >> awkward given that I am not the champion of the enclosed ideas, nor even >> necessarily a proponent. The alternatives would be for someone who is one >> or both of those things to open blueprint PRs instead (most recent change >> was Rob Butts, so I'm guessing him) or we could instead move the spec >> verbatim to the GH wiki, which I can also do fairly easily. >> >> Personally, I think blueprints make the most sense, and if/when we begin >> earnest discussion on their contents and it becomes clear I'm not up to the >> task/don't have the time, someone who is/does can just open a new PR using >> the blueprint(s) I write as a basis, and my PR can be closed. But the last >> edit to that page was a year and a half ago, so it's possible that won't be >> for a while, or even that people would prefer to start from scratch by the >> time that happens. >> >
