I like the proposal. Along with that should we also consider writing documents for the features already present?
Andrews. On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Matteo Merli <[email protected]> wrote: > So far the discussion for large code changes (new features, improvements) > in the project has happened in a very informal way. > > As a way to improve community involvement and also to have a better > internal > documentation I would like to propose to adopt the PIP model that many > projects > follow. > > Here, PIP would stand for "Pulsar Improvement Proposal" and would consist > in creating design documents in the Wiki with a sequential id. > > The document doesn't need to be a super-detailed specification, but should > explain all the design points, reasons for choosing a determined solution, > rejected alternatives and allow for other contributors to understand the > feature/change and to contribute as well to it. > > The advantage would be to have a preliminary discussion and gather feedback > on the design itself and also have the proposals there as a reference. > > In some cases the design has been discussed over "issues" or PRs but then > later it's more difficult to understand the whole picture, since the > information is fragmented. > > Opinions? > > Matteo
