Re: JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

Reading the updated JEP 1 sounds like PR 59 for JEP 201 would pass as minor changes which provides clarification. Unless I am misinterpreting the intend of both pull requests  Den onsdag den 4. april 2018 kl. 08.42.21 UTC+2 skrev Liam Newman: > > Hello all, > I've attempted to synthesize the

Re: JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

Hello all, I've attempted to synthesize the key points made here into a PR for JEP 1: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/76 The scope of this change expanded a bit, but I think the result is clearer. Please feel free to comment (or even better to commit edits directly). Thanks, Liam On

Re: JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

Andrew, That's an interesting point as well. The process is still relatively new, so it's not surprising that there's a learning curve and a need for more examples. JEPs with tighter focus will definitely move through the process more quickly, since they will require less discussion, design-time,

Re: JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

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

Re: JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

This is a ton of great feedback, thanks! Ewelina, JEPs have a number of purposes, but they are definitely _not_ meant to stifle innovation. At minimum though, they are meant to provide a medium for building consensus on the design and implementation of major features/processes of the Jenkins

Re: JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > "all 'significant changes' to a JEP should be > completed before it is Accepted" looks like a requirement that may hinder > innovation and experimentation on areas that are not clear from the start. To play devil’s

Re: JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

I agree with Ewelina that *"all 'significant changes' to a JEP should be completed before it is Accepted"* looks like a requirement that may hinder innovation and experimentation on areas that are not clear from the start. I'd rather see a review process that can return the JEP to a draft state

Re: JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

I'm perfectly ok with starting a discussion about proposed change And in general I do not disagree with your proposal but I want to share my doubts... when we started working on Jenkins Configuration as Code we had an idea and then the idea has changed and I'm glad we put it all in one

JEP: Modification of "Accepted" JEPs

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/pull/59 This poses a problem because the JEP