areusch commented on pull request #13: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/13#issuecomment-887914798
@comaniac i view the core data structures and interfaces as part of the design-level documentation. i think they belong in Reference-level explanation. see for example my RFC #8 --this includes the introduced interface as part of the RFC. details such as where code lives are not considered in the RFC. i don't think an RFC is really very well-written if a reviewer finds the RFC acceptable but the implementation 100% unacceptable beyond a reasonable code-review process. code review should be about aligning on implementation details, and should be guided by the goals set forth in the RFC. another thought I had while considering this proposal: there could be an alternate flow as follows: - proposal thread on Discuss forum - initial sketch of RFC sent as draft PR to tvm-rfcs plus tracking bug - PMC/Committers review RFC sketch and approve/reject - at this point, RFC could either be committed or just assigned an ID number (e.g. commit an empty file to tvm-rfcs to hold the number and associate tracking bug) - implementation proceeds, tracked by bug - to mark the conclusion of RFC implementation, author updates the RFC PR as-built and merges it. the benefits of this arrangement is that there would be a pending code-review where people reviewing the implementation could request additional design-level documentation as complexities are found in implementation. i'm not too sure if i'm attached to this proposal or not yet, but documenting my thought here as it's related. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
