couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <>
Subject Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Date Thu, 14 May 2020 21:14:22 GMT
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 <> 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

View raw message