Recently I submitted a PR <https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1330> 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?
