I don't think we should hold up this work to document something that wasn't
previously documented.  A follow-on is sufficient.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:50 AM Ryan Merriman <merrim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Reply via email to