[FEP-a4ed] Allow FEP's to be superseded #16

Closed
opened 4 months ago by circlebuilder · 4 comments
Owner

Discussion: Improve FEP process: How to correct, extend or supercede a FEP that is FINAL?

Summary of proposed changes:

  • Minor corrections and typo's to a FINAL FEP can be PR'ed at any time.

  • Any change that is more substantial and would lead to adjustments to implementations MUST be proposed in a separate FEP and go through the review process.

  • If the new FEP becomes FINAL, the original one MUST point to it in an added replacedBy metadata attribute.

  • The new FEP MUST include a replaces metadata attribute pointing to FEP's it supercedes.

Open questions:

  • Should there be an indicator that a replacement FEP is being worked on, so that implementers are aware of it?

  • Assume: Yes! But this indication can be in the tracking issue in a comment that is clearly marked with "WARNING" heading.

  • The FEP template should indicate the importance of consulting the tracking issue, which is referenced in the discussionsTo metadata attribute (see #15).

Discussion: [Improve FEP process: How to correct, extend or supercede a FEP that is FINAL?](https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/improve-fep-process-how-to-correct-extend-or-supercede-a-fep-that-is-final/2299) Summary of proposed changes: - Minor corrections and typo's to a FINAL FEP can be PR'ed at any time. - Any change that is more substantial and would lead to adjustments to implementations MUST be proposed in a separate FEP and go through the review process. - If the new FEP becomes FINAL, the original one MUST point to it in an added `replacedBy` metadata attribute. - The new FEP MUST include a `replaces` metadata attribute pointing to FEP's it supercedes. Open questions: - Should there be an indicator that a replacement FEP is being worked on, so that implementers are aware of it? - Assume: Yes! But this indication can be in the tracking issue in a comment that is clearly marked with "WARNING" heading. - The FEP template should indicate the importance of consulting the tracking issue, which is referenced in the `discussionsTo` metadata attribute (see #15).

Any change that is more substantial and would lead to adjustments to implementations MUST be proposed in a separate FEP and go through the review process.

One exception to this rule could be FEP-a4ed (the meta-FEP). I expect it to be changed many times over the years, so it can benefit from having a constant ID.

Should there be an indicator that a replacement FEP is being worked on, so that implementers are aware of it?
Assume: Yes! But this indication can be in the tracking issue in a comment that is clearly marked with "WARNING" heading.

I agree, this type of communication can happen in tracking issues.

>Any change that is more substantial and would lead to adjustments to implementations MUST be proposed in a separate FEP and go through the review process. One exception to this rule could be FEP-a4ed (the meta-FEP). I expect it to be changed many times over the years, so it can benefit from having a constant ID. >Should there be an indicator that a replacement FEP is being worked on, so that implementers are aware of it? >Assume: Yes! But this indication can be in the tracking issue in a comment that is clearly marked with "WARNING" heading. I agree, this type of communication can happen in tracking issues.
Poster
Owner

One exception to this rule could be FEP-a4ed (the meta-FEP). I expect it to be changed many times over the years, so it can benefit from having a constant ID.

Good point. That exception makes sense. I only wonder if other FEP's should refer to the correct revision then, for cases where old FEP's do not align with procedure and people pointing that out. That, or the procedure should include that old FEP's must be updated to reflect the most up-to-date procedure if FEP-a4ed changes.

> One exception to this rule could be FEP-a4ed (the meta-FEP). I expect it to be changed many times over the years, so it can benefit from having a constant ID. Good point. That exception makes sense. I only wonder if other FEP's should refer to the correct revision then, for cases where old FEP's do not align with procedure and people pointing that out. That, or the procedure should include that old FEP's must be updated to reflect the most up-to-date procedure if FEP-a4ed changes.

Ideally, changes to FEP-a4ed should be fully backwards-compatible. For example, if proposed change to FEP-a4ed defines a new metadata field, the requirement should apply only to new FEPs.
This norm can be reviewed in the future, if it will be necessary to do so.

Ideally, changes to FEP-a4ed should be fully backwards-compatible. For example, if proposed change to FEP-a4ed defines a new metadata field, the requirement should apply only to new FEPs. This norm can be reviewed in the future, if it will be necessary to do so.
weex changed title from [FEP-a4ed] Allow FEP's to be superceded to [FEP-a4ed] Allow FEP's to be superseded 1 month ago
Owner

Fixed by #19

Fixed by #19
weex closed this issue 4 weeks ago
Sign in to join this conversation.
Loading…
There is no content yet.