-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 162
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[RFC 0093] Propose RFC Categories #93
Changes from 1 commit
9fe54e6
cd48c4d
fdc9d5d
141b575
986d268
db237d5
4478db4
be5eb70
653c373
8359e65
b2d5489
e9bea2a
d8172a6
bca690e
3017cb6
0a7063a
9861b53
defa62d
5a91b5f
f6b1f0e
c5817cd
9649d54
e817588
91a7376
dee0b81
5145689
2268ea8
6ed720b
140779e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
Co-authored-by: Kevin Cox <kevincox@kevincox.ca>
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ binding changes to community workflows or infrastructure. | |
considered a failed RFC process, might have benefited from a framework to transition into | ||
a general experiment in the form of an _informational_ RFC as soon as it had become | ||
clear that it won't be accepted as a _feature_ RFC. Its subsequent closure has rendered | ||
the entire flake experiment to a largely undocumented, unstructured, and intransparent | ||
the entire flake experiment to a largely undocumented, unstructured, and opaque | ||
process that still elicites strong opinions within the community. Clarity over RFC options | ||
and venues _might_ have helped mitigate this situation. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can you explain better how having categories would've helped in the case of flakes? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Categories act like a conceptual map. similar to a traditional map, they help navigate the process. I can't tell if it would have helped, but navigating with a (better) map seems indeed capable of improving the outcome (of navigation). I resumed all that in the word clarity. I'd hope this PR comment is enough to help posterity interpret, I fear the phrase might grow out of hand otherwise. |
||
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If flakes would've been an informational RFC, then I think the word informational is a misnomer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It might be. I'd be happy to hear suggestions.
A better name for something that does not primarily originate in a change.
Let's keep in mind that everything can be technically interpreted as change, but contrasting with the other two categories, this category attempts to create a "space for RFC-style consensus" that does not primarily propose a change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the flake RFC had similar problems, but maybe wouldn't be solved exactly by this proposal.
I think it was a problem that we couldn't merge an RFC with the intent to experiment. This is an example of an issue specifying the desired outcome. It is very common for people to focus on "I want to make X easier" without saying the "implied" bit of "I want to make a technical change to Nix that makes X easier". For example maybe if we could add "I want to add an experimental feature to nix to make X easier. This could have guided reviewers that not every technical detail needs to be perfect and production read, as another RFC would be required to actually implement the stable feature once we have a lot more background. This could have helped the RFC be accepted with the right goals.
This sounds similar to this RFC where categories are a way of suggesting the desired outcome. feature implies that you want to make a change to Nix, Nixpkgs or whatever and informational means that you just want to get the community to agree on a fact or opinion with no other change. However the difference here is that flakes are not informational. The intention is to make a change to Nix, but maybe it would have helped to make a not officially supported change which is the key difference missing from the objective.
I do see a couple of ways to handle this:
However I don't see this RFC doing either. So I think the example needs to be changed to not be putting the flakes RFC into a category in which it doesn't appear to fit. Either we need to find a category for it that would be expected to help the review process or we need to find a better example.