couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Date Tue, 19 May 2020 19:19:39 GMT
Can +1 but its gonna feel really silly when I think about how the code
is already merged...

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Looks like the Mango one has the required +1 already.
>
> There's reviews of the map index one by Adam, Paul, and Mike (Rhodes)
> but neither have explicitly +1'ed. Can any of you get to this?
>
> I'd rather not be the deciding +1 right now, too much else on my plate
> to give this the attention it deserves for that - but I have skimmed it.
>
> -Joan
>
> On 2020-05-18 7:49, Garren Smith wrote:
> > Great thanks for the feedback. Its good to know that they are still
> > considered useful. I've updated my mango and map index RFC's to match the
> > current implementations.
> > I would like to merge them in.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Garren
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's
> >> being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the
> >> basis for eventual documentation.
> >>
> >> I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but
> >> it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a
> >> few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo.
> >>
> >> My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they
> >> were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs.
> >>
> >> Is that too onerous of a request?
> >>
> >> I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in
> >> great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really
> >> needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source
> >> material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is
> >> meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line
> >> with expectations.
> >>
> >> -Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet
> >>
> >> On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> >>> I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of
> >> “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can
be
> >> a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if
> >> there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth
a
> >> note to dev@ to call that out.
> >>>
> >>> I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still
> >> capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to
> >> update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers, Adam
> >>>
> >>>> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <garren@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to
know
> >>>> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's
> >> useful?
> >>>>
> >>>> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we
> >> write an
> >>>> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from
> >> how
> >>>> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
> >>>> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further
> >> from
> >>>> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should
> >> we
> >>>> leave it at a certain point?
> >>>>
> >>>> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore
the
> >>>> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that
we
> >>>> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
> >>>> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Garren
> >>>
> >>
> >

Mime
View raw message