>some design decisions are still being made without going through the RFC >process, either by mailing list discussions or by people just creating PRs >without any prior discussion.
I've seen this several times particularly in Smart Proxy repo where some design changes were part of regular PRs without proper discussion. To give an example, dependency injection framework was introduced as a Puppet 4 PR and this change turned things upside down in initialization phase. The sad thing about this one is I executed unit tests once for this change locally to see if it fixed random failures on my dev setup. Since the PR was entitled simply Puppet, I just made a comment without reading discussion or code. I am bringing it here because I think Smart Proxy (and larger plugins) are also subject for RFCs. I have a proposal, let's retire RFC github repo and simply fallback to mailing list but with [RFC] prefix so everyone is aware this is possible design change, refactoring or larger proposal that is at least worth reading. This should definitely not be annoying for anyone to at least inform about intentions, motivation, reasoning and overall design. I don't think we need any kind of design documents, but short description with a place for discussion before code is actually is written is a good thing to have. On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Tomer Brisker <tbris...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hello, > > About a year ago, we decided to try using a new system for discussing design > decisions prior to making changes, by creating a repo for RFCs [1]. Part of > the problem was that when discussing on the mailing list, discussions tended > to die out without a resolution, and eventually whoever wrote the code made > the decision (or not). > Since then, there have been about 30 proposals made in the repository. 22 of > them are still open, most with no activity for months. > So I feel fairly safe to say that this change has not led to the wanted > result of getting decisions made faster or with more discussion. A > significant part of the proposals have less then 10 comments, in many cases > all from just one or two respondents. Eventually proposals are still decided > on only when someone goes ahead, writes the code and gets it merged. > This has also led to some discussions taking place without all of the > developers even knowing about them, as it would seem most don't follow that > repo regularly, leading to repeated discussions when a PR is created. > In addition, some design decisions are still being made without going > through the RFC process, either by mailing list discussions or by people > just creating PRs without any prior discussion. > > I'm not sure what we can do to increase peoples' involvement in these > discussions, nor what would be a better way of making design decisions, but > let's try to figure it out since this attempt has not worked out as expected > in my opinion. > > [1] original discussion - > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/foreman-dev/P9uRYV5K1Dc/xKMnzOOqDgAJ > > -- > Have a nice day, > Tomer Brisker > Red Hat Engineering > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Later, Lukas @lzap Zapletal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
