Hi Nathan
Sounds good to me (no strong opinion wheter to call it RFC or QEP). The
old RFC template is even online
(http://hub.qgis.org/projects/quantum-gis/wiki/RFC_Template).
So open questions:
- What needs to have an RFC?
Proposal Martin: >1000 lines of code / modification to core/gui /
UI changes
- Who can vote?
PSC only (GDAL) / committers
- How long shall the period from RFC/QEP announcement until finish of
voting period be? Probably it needs a 'remember, you have to vote' mail
a few days before end of voting period.
Will be cool if Larry can do the first QEP of the 'modern age'.
Regards,
Marco
On 21.08.2014 14:26, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
Hey all,
I would like to raise something I have been considering for a while
now. We are becoming a large project, in code and users, and there has
been some recent issues of developers doing work only for there to be
disagreements on the implementation. I would like resurrect the use of
RFCs, or I think would should name them QEP (QGIS Enhancement Proposal
because that sounds much cooler :)
My thinking behind this was:
- QGIS is picking up pace in popularity and use so we need something
to formalise the future feature set and any improvements for the next
version. Most people know the Python project uses the idea of PEPs in
order to document what new major features are coming in X version and
to explain the rational, or reasons . I have found this handy to be
able to look at detailed overview of why a feature made it or didn't,
or when it might make it, or if ever.
- This is more then just using the bug tracker to log future features.
This is something where we can have more detail and then break it down
into sub tasks which can live in the bug tracker but linked to the QEP
(RFC).
- The QEP should also have formal voting and discussion around the
proposal. This should be limited to a small pool of developers.
- The QEP could also list changes the API, or if breaking changes need
to be made.
- Things like how the new feature might fit into other future plans.
- QEPs should list as much detail as possible in order to help
everyone see the bigger picture with the feature or change.
Another reason I was thinking about this was in order to consolidate
major features and collaborate better. Emails are fine but get lost
and forgotten very easily, the bug tracker is the same. The QEP can
link to the emails and tickets for future reference. QEPs should be
the central point for the feature linking to everything that is related.
Tim has been using GitHub for inaSAFE RFCs and it looks good. IMO I
would say we should use that.
Thoughts?
Nathan
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
--
Dr. Marco Hugentobler
Sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
Weberstrasse 5, CH-8004 Zürich, Switzerland
[email protected] http://www.sourcepole.ch
Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
