Add "Implementation" notes to RFCs?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 171
- Forks
- 75
- Avg merge
- 2d 3h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 20
Description
I suggest besides Reviews, Responses, Comments and Versions, we also add an "Implementations" category in the RFCs.
The "Implementation" report would provide an snapshot of the current state of one particular implementation of an RFC.
This would help moving RFCs to accepted (requires 2 initial implementations) and, after spec changes, to adopted (2 complete implementations).
Pros:
- Public documentation of implementations in context of particular RFCs
- Helps tracking and acknowledgment of implementers
- Supports automatic RFC status detection
Cons:
- One more thing to write and manage
- Implementations move faster and document gets outdated
Motivated by
- #603 (ping @kevinyamauchi)
- #552
I'll ping @ome/image-coop as implementation of RFCs is a core business of the Coop
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files or implementation entry points are named. Start by reading the RFC structure and the related issues #603 and #552, then determine how an Implementations category would fit existing Reviews, Responses, Comments, and Versions. Done requires an agreed scope and design for documenting implementations and updating RFC status.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100