From f2b435fae4cddb999ac350f09a3e2edcfcd10c88 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Yann Esposito (Yogsototh)" Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:29:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] journal/2020-11-26--10-11-23Z--meta_rfc_for_dev_team.org --- ...1-26--10-11-23Z--meta_rfc_for_dev_team.org | 21 ++++++------------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/journal/2020-11-26--10-11-23Z--meta_rfc_for_dev_team.org b/journal/2020-11-26--10-11-23Z--meta_rfc_for_dev_team.org index ad6a45b8..fdd1b1de 100644 --- a/journal/2020-11-26--10-11-23Z--meta_rfc_for_dev_team.org +++ b/journal/2020-11-26--10-11-23Z--meta_rfc_for_dev_team.org @@ -14,21 +14,12 @@ I hope not to trigger the need for a meta-meta-document ;). * Problem -We are mixing dev focused RFC with broader -We miss correct RFC templates. +We do not have proper RFC template. +Developer focused RFCs and Feature specification RFC should probably have distinct templates. +* Proposed Solutions -For any newcomer it will be difficult to keep track of previous team -decisions. +Here are my proposed templates. +We already have a =dev= label we should probably use for dev-only -RFC regarding our coding conventions, toolings, libraries, frameworks, are -mixed with RFC focused on writing a specification to deliver features. - -We are dependent on =github= issue tracker for essential knowledge for our team. - -* Solution - -We should have a document that keep track of our RFCs final decisions. - -So if an RFC is about coding conventions, we should probably amend the -=CONTRIBUTING.org= file with a link to the RFC issue. +** Template Dev