On pondělí 13. března 2017 9:44:12 CET Lukas Zapletal wrote: > >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.
Works for me > 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. We can always fallback to pad/wiki/google docs/rfc repo when it's needed. Most of the time, it's not. -- Marek > > 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. -- 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.
