Great thanks for the feedback. Its good to know that they are still considered useful. I've updated my mango and map index RFC's to match the current implementations. I would like to merge them in.
Cheers Garren On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's > being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the > basis for eventual documentation. > > I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but > it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a > few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo. > > My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they > were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs. > > Is that too onerous of a request? > > I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in > great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really > needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source > material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is > meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line > with expectations. > > -Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet > > On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote: > > I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of > “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be > a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if > there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a > note to dev@ to call that out. > > > > I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still > capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to > update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value. > > > > Cheers, Adam > > > >> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <gar...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know > >> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's > useful? > >> > >> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we > write an > >> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from > how > >> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code > >> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further > from > >> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should > we > >> leave it at a certain point? > >> > >> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the > >> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we > >> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature > >> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Garren > > >
