RFC 249: Rewrite the V2 Experiments RFC to have a more working-backwards tone #377
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
njlynch
force-pushed
the
njlynch/v2-experiments-v2
branch
from
03d9294 to
bb25608
Compare
rix0rrr
reviewed
Aug 26, 2021
rix0rrr
reviewed
Aug 26, 2021
rix0rrr
reviewed
Aug 26, 2021
nija-at
previously requested changes
Aug 26, 2021
nija-at
reviewed
Aug 26, 2021
Co-authored-by: Niranjan Jayakar <[email protected]>
nija-at
previously approved these changes
Aug 26, 2021
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please also see
#377 (comment) and #377 (comment)
Otherwise LGTM.
I suggest keeping this RFC around for a couple of more days to see if others have anything to say.
nija-at
reviewed
Aug 26, 2021
I believe this is the correct thing to do if our choices have changed during implementation of the original RFC. OTOH, if these changes are part of a new project, then a new RFC is better. |
skinny85
reviewed
Aug 26, 2021
rix0rrr
previously approved these changes
Aug 27, 2021
mergify
bot
dismissed stale reviews from nija-at and rix0rrr
Pull request has been modified.
rix0rrr
approved these changes
Aug 27, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While working on the release of the CDK v2 Experimental Modules, I found myself looking for a place to document and discuss some of the customer-facing decisions being made (e.g., package naming, versioning, Changelog organization). Unfortunately, the current state of RFC 249 does not lend itself well to this format (IMO); the RFC as-is is more implementation-focused and more heavily leans towards the why of many of the decisions. While absolutely useful context, it doesn't read as much as a working-backwards document as I'd like.
My mental model to solve this was to copy (and save!) this really useful decision-making document, and replace the main RFC body with a series of working-backwards artifacts that (hopefully?) capture the customer experience of working with the alpha/unstable modules.
We don't usually go back and update old RFCs, so I recognize maybe this isn't the correct approach. I am very open to feedback on whether (a) this is useful; and (b) this is the best way to go about documenting these decisions.
Apologies for the ugly diff. I'd recommend opening up the rendered version of the new RFC to review, rather than viewing the diff directly.
[Rendered Version]
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache-2.0 license