Recently I submitted a PR <> that
introduces a large number of changes to a critical part of our code base.
Reviewers feel like it is significant enough to document at an
architectural level (and I agree).  There are a couple points I would like
to clarify.

Generally architectural documentation lives in the README of the
appropriate module.  Do we want to continue documenting architecture here?
I think it makes sense because it will be versioned along with the code.
Just wanted to confirm there are no objections to continuing this practice.

A reviewer suggested we could accept the PR as is and leave the
architectural documentation as a follow on.  I think this makes sense
because it can be tedious to maintain a large PR as other smaller commits
are accepted into master.  An important requirement is the documentation
follow on must be completed in a timely manner, before the next release.
Are there any objections to doing it this way?

Reply via email to