chore: simplify RFC format #222
Conversation
A proposal to reduce the complexity of RFCs by simplifying the template to a PR/FAQ format.
|
Title does not follow the guidelines of Conventional Commits. Please adjust title before merge. |
| > | ||
| > - [Graphviz](http://graphviz.it/#/gallery/structs.gv) | ||
| > - [PlantText](https://www.planttext.com) | ||
| > If this is a major feature (~6 months of work), write the PRESS RELEASE which |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is covered in Working Backwards above. We should merge these paragraphs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the working backwards section. Not sure I follow...
|
How is this a simplification? It's hard to tell from the diff how this makes an RFC easier/faster to write. |
@ericzbeard - how do you propose this be made visible? The nature of applying unified diff on markdown docs does not render for nice diff'ing. I've updated the commit description with a link to the rendered version. You should be able to side by side compare the old rendered version with the new one to see if this is simplified. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like it, I think it makes the RFC process more of a tool to help the writer frame their thoughts than a chore.
One general comment, the addition of the Press release creates redundancy with others section, for example: CHANGELOG and "What are we launching today" + "Is this a breaking change". I would suggest dropping the README section and the CHANGELOG section in favor of the press release.
|
|
||
| # Design Summary | ||
| ### README |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need the README section in addition to the content of the PRESS RELEASE and Working Backwards, I feel like there will be a lot of duplicate between the two.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See line 12, the requirement is to include "one or more artifacts", not all of them.
Co-authored-by: Niranjan Jayakar <nija@amazon.com>
Co-authored-by: Niranjan Jayakar <nija@amazon.com>
A proposal to reduce the complexity of RFCs by simplifying the template to a PR/FAQ format.
Rendered version