+1 (non-binding) On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 at 9:00 PM, zstan <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > > Folks, please don't forget we should vote for this before voting on the > > first RFC's > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 9:58 PM Anton Vinogradov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Following our discussion [1] and today's call, I'd like to put the > >> following proposal to a vote. > >> > >> Let's use RFCs for public API changes, keeping them as Markdown files in > >> the Ignite repository and reviewing them through pull requests instead > >> of > >> creating IEPs. Apache Hudi [2] and TiDB [3] are good examples of this > >> approach. > >> > >> Changes to the public API would need to be covered by an RFC approved by > >> at least three Ignite committers before the code is merged. > >> > >> The first RFC will define what we consider the public API and how the > >> process works in detail. We'll discuss and approve that separately; this > >> vote is about agreeing on the approach and the three-committer > >> requirement. > >> > >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > >> > >> [ ] +1 — Agree > >> [ ] 0 — Neutral > >> [ ] -1 — Disagree (please explain) > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/cfrpdv9t8dq05ghc7dyjppst4m7nd28f > >> [2] https://hudi.apache.org/contribute/rfc-process/ > >> [3] https://github.com/pingcap/tidb/blob/master/docs/design/README.md >
