Contributing: Clearly define RFC vs PR process #188
Merged
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
TSC21
approved these changes
May 31, 2019
TSC21
approved these changes
May 31, 2019
|
Self merging. Content is as agreed in dev call |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #185
There was some confusion about where to draw the line for using RFC or PRs. As discussed in devcall we want to use RFCs for microservices, because a lot more discussion is required to explain the complexity of state machines and potentially multiple messages. PRs are generally fine for standalone messages or sets of messages without the additional complexity of a state machine.
This rewords the contribution categories around complexity, making it clear that PRs are for most simple changes. There may be some edge cases, but this more closely reflects how everyone works.
@TSC21 - can you please confirm that this is sufficiently unambiguous?