Thanks a lot for this extended answer Liam! As I said I do not have any strong feelings/objections but I'm glad we have this discussion that hopefully will make things more clear :)
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 12:47:52 AM UTC+1, Liam Newman wrote: > > We recently had a pull request with a number of significant changes filed > against JEP-201 which has already been "Accepted" (see the JEP workflow > outlined in JEP-1 <https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/1>). > > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/59 > > This poses a problem because the JEP workflow doesn't contain guidance for > making/tracking significant changes to JEPs. The intent of the process is > for all major changes to land while the JEP is a "Draft". A JEP being > "Accepted" means that a general consensus was reached regarding the design > and scope of the component/area described by the JEP. Once a JEP is marked > "Final", the workflow specifically states that changes should be made by > filing a new JEP and marking the old one as "Superseded" when the new JEP > is complete. > > I would like to add the following clarifications to JEP-1: > > 1. State specifically that all "significant changes" to a JEP should > be completed before it is Accepted. This is pointed to in a number of > places but may not be mentioned explicitly. > 2. Define a "significant change" is any change that would modify the > intent, scope, API, or overall behavior of the component. I will provide > some examples. > 3. If "significant changes" are proposed to an "Accepted" JEP, it is > be the responsibility of the Sponsor to communicate those changes on the > mailing list and make sure that people have sufficient opportunity to > review and comment before merging those changes. A link to the thread > should be included in the PR for the change and in the References section. > 4. If there are strong objections to the proposed change, the Reviewer > of the JEP may choose to return the JEP to a "Draft" state for continued > discussion and re-review. > > (Items 1 and 2 are both clarifications. Item 3 is a reiteration of the > existing responsibilities of the JEP Sponsor in light of 1 and 2. 4 is a > reiteration of the existing of responsibilities and powers of the JEP > Review in light of 1 and 2.) > > In the case of the above PR. it means that Ewelina would need to start a > thread on the mailing list to discuss this change and give people time to > review before we merge that change. > > What do people think of this? An feedback or suggestions? > > Thanks, > Liam Newman > JEP-1 Sponsor > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/a67b80d8-be6b-465a-b96a-39cfd6c31cbf%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
