From 0aba13e8243e4aae9a76c4d2b55c064078e63edf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Markus Kohlhase Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:05:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Adjust RFC template to Karte von morgen --- 0000-template.md | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/0000-template.md b/0000-template.md index 8e48d00..e383b98 100644 --- a/0000-template.md +++ b/0000-template.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ - Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, `my_awesome_feature`) - Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD) -- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000) -- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000) +- RFC PR: [kartevonmorgen/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/kartevonmorgen/rfcs/pull/0000) +- Issue: [kartevonmorgen/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/kartevonmorgen/rfcs/issues/0000) # Summary [summary]: #summary @@ -16,15 +16,22 @@ Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outc # Guide-level explanation [guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation -Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the language and you were teaching it to another Rust programmer. That generally means: +Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the project +and you were teaching it to another *Karte von morgen* user. That generally means: - Introducing new named concepts. - Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples. -- Explaining how Rust programmers should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Rust. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible. +- Explaining how users should *think* about the feature, + and how it should impact the way they use the *Karte von morgen*. + It should explain the impact as concretely as possible. - If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance. -- If applicable, describe the differences between teaching this to existing Rust programmers and new Rust programmers. +- If applicable, describe the differences between teaching this to existing KVM users and new KVM users. -For implementation-oriented RFCs (e.g. for compiler internals), this section should focus on how compiler contributors should think about the change, and give examples of its concrete impact. For policy RFCs, this section should provide an example-driven introduction to the policy, and explain its impact in concrete terms. +For implementation-oriented RFCs (e.g. for OpenFairDB internals), +this section should focus on how contributors should think about the change, +and give examples of its concrete impact. +For policy RFCs, this section should provide an example-driven introduction to the policy, +and explain its impact in concrete terms. # Reference-level explanation [reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation @@ -35,7 +42,8 @@ This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detai - It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented. - Corner cases are dissected by example. -The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work. +The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, +and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work. # Drawbacks [drawbacks]: #drawbacks @@ -55,16 +63,21 @@ Why should we *not* do this? Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A few examples of what this can include are: -- For language, library, cargo, tools, and compiler proposals: Does this feature exist in other programming languages and what experience have their community had? +- For language, library, tools, frontend and backend proposals: + Does this feature exist in other projects and what experience have their community had? - For community proposals: Is this done by some other community and what were their experiences with it? - For other teams: What lessons can we learn from what other communities have done here? -- Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical background. +- Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? + If you have some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical background. -This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other languages, provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture. -If there is no prior art, that is fine - your ideas are interesting to us whether they are brand new or if it is an adaptation from other languages. +This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other projects, +provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture. +If there is no prior art, that is fine - your ideas are interesting to us whether they are brand new +or if it is an adaptation from other projects. -Note that while precedent set by other languages is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC. -Please also take into consideration that rust sometimes intentionally diverges from common language features. +Note that while precedent set by other projects is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC. +Please also take into consideration that *Karte von morgen* sometimes intentionally diverges from common +GIS projects. # Unresolved questions [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions @@ -77,9 +90,9 @@ Please also take into consideration that rust sometimes intentionally diverges f [future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would -be and how it would affect the language and project as a whole in a holistic +be and how it would affect the project as a whole in a holistic way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible -interactions with the project and language in your proposal. +interactions with the project in your proposal. Also consider how the this all fits into the roadmap for the project and of the relevant sub-team. From 73f41fdd312e28e0dbd540b44392943a4581aae4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Markus Kohlhase Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:35:11 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Adjust README.md to Karte von morgen --- README.md | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 51c3035..c67ad58 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -2,25 +2,24 @@ ***TODO: Adopt contents as needed*** -[Rust RFCs]: #rust-rfcs +[KVM RFCs]: #kartevonmorgen-rfcs Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow. Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a -bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Rust community and -the [sub-team]s. +bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the *Karte von morgen* community. The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent -and controlled path for new features to enter the language and standard -libraries, so that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction the +and controlled path for new features to enter the project, +so that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction the language is evolving in. ## Table of Contents [Table of Contents]: #table-of-contents - - [Opening](#rust-rfcs) + - [Opening](#kartevonmorgen-rfcs) - [Table of Contents] - [When you need to follow this process] - [Before creating an RFC] @@ -37,47 +36,34 @@ language is evolving in. [When you need to follow this process]: #when-you-need-to-follow-this-process You need to follow this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to -Rust, Cargo, Crates.io, or the RFC process itself. What constitutes a +*Karte von morgen*, *OpenFairDB* or the RFC process itself. What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on community norms and varies depending on what part of the ecosystem you are proposing to change, but may include the following. - - Any semantic or syntactic change to the language that is not a bugfix. - - Removing language features, including those that are feature-gated. - - Changes to the interface between the compiler and libraries, including lang - items and intrinsics. - - Additions to `std`. + - Any semantic change to the project that is not a bugfix. + - Removing features, including those that are feature-gated. + - Changes to the interface between the *OpenFairDB* and *Karte von morgen* Some changes do not require an RFC: - - Rephrasing, reorganizing, refactoring, or otherwise "changing shape does + - Reorganizing, refactoring, or otherwise "changing shape does not change meaning". - Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality criteria (warning removal, speedup, better platform coverage, more parallelism, trap more errors, etc.) - - Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers-of-rust, - invisible to users-of-rust. + - Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers of the project, + invisible to users of the project. If you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first. -### Sub-team specific guidelines -[Sub-team specific guidelines]: #sub-team-specific-guidelines - -For more details on when an RFC is required for the following areas, please see -the Rust community's [sub-team] specific guidelines for: - - - [language changes](lang_changes.md), - - [library changes](libs_changes.md), - - [compiler changes](compiler_changes.md). - - ## Before creating an RFC [Before creating an RFC]: #before-creating-an-rfc -A hastily-proposed RFC can hurt its chances of acceptance. Low quality -proposals, proposals for previously-rejected features, or those that don't fit +A hastily-proposed RFC can hurt its chances of acceptance. +Low quality proposals, proposals for previously-rejected features, or those that don't fit into the near-term roadmap, may be quickly rejected, which can be demotivating for the unprepared contributor. Laying some groundwork ahead of the RFC can make the process smoother. @@ -87,23 +73,16 @@ generally a good idea to pursue feedback from other project developers beforehand, to ascertain that the RFC may be desirable; having a consistent impact on the project requires concerted effort toward consensus-building. -The most common preparations for writing and submitting an RFC include talking -the idea over on our [official Discord server], discussing the topic on our -[developer discussion forum], and occasionally posting "pre-RFCs" on the -developer forum. You may file issues on this repo for discussion, but these are -not actively looked at by the teams. - As a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing project -developers, and particularly members of the relevant [sub-team] is a good -indication that the RFC is worth pursuing. +developers is a good indication that the RFC is worth pursuing. ## What the process is [What the process is]: #what-the-process-is -In short, to get a major feature added to Rust, one must first get the RFC +In short, to get a major feature added to the project, one must first get the RFC merged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is -"active" and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Rust. +"active" and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into *Karte von morgen*. - Fork the RFC repo [RFC repository] - Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where "my-feature" is @@ -115,14 +94,11 @@ merged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is - Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to revise it in response. - - Each pull request will be labeled with the most relevant [sub-team], which - will lead to its being triaged by that team in a future meeting and assigned - to a member of the subteam. - Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments. Feel free to reach out to the RFC assignee in particular to get help identifying stakeholders and obstacles. - - The sub-team will discuss the RFC pull request, as much as possible in the + - The core-team will discuss the RFC pull request, as much as possible in the comment thread of the pull request itself. Offline discussion will be summarized on the pull request comment thread. - RFCs rarely go through this process unchanged, especially as alternatives @@ -131,29 +107,24 @@ merged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is request, and leave a comment on the pull request explaining your changes. Specifically, do not squash or rebase commits after they are visible on the pull request. - - At some point, a member of the subteam will propose a "motion for final + - At some point, a member of the core-team will propose a "motion for final comment period" (FCP), along with a *disposition* for the RFC (merge, close, or postpone). - This step is taken when enough of the tradeoffs have been discussed that - the subteam is in a position to make a decision. That does not require + the core-team is in a position to make a decision. That does not require consensus amongst all participants in the RFC thread (which is usually impossible). However, the argument supporting the disposition on the RFC needs to have already been clearly articulated, and there should not be a - strong consensus *against* that position outside of the subteam. Subteam + strong consensus *against* that position outside of the core-team. Core-team members use their best judgment in taking this step, and the FCP itself ensures there is ample time and notification for stakeholders to push back if it is made prematurely. - For RFCs with lengthy discussion, the motion to FCP is usually preceded by a *summary comment* trying to lay out the current state of the discussion and major tradeoffs/points of disagreement. - - Before actually entering FCP, *all* members of the subteam must sign off; - this is often the point at which many subteam members first review the RFC - in full depth. + - Before actually entering FCP, *all* members of the core-team must sign off; - The FCP lasts ten calendar days, so that it is open for at least 5 business - days. It is also advertised widely, - e.g. in [This Week in Rust](https://this-week-in-rust.org/). This way all - stakeholders have a chance to lodge any final objections before a decision - is reached. + days. - In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised, the FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode. @@ -162,14 +133,15 @@ merged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is [The RFC life-cycle]: #the-rfc-life-cycle Once an RFC becomes "active" then authors may implement it and submit the -feature as a pull request to the Rust repo. Being "active" is not a rubber -stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be -merged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed +feature as a pull request to the kartevonmorgen or openfairdb repo. +Being "active" is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean +the feature will ultimately be merged; +it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to the feature and are amenable to merging it. Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is "active" implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does -it imply anything about whether a Rust developer has been assigned the task of +it imply anything about whether a developer has been assigned the task of implementing the feature. While it is not *necessary* that the author of the RFC also write the implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see an RFC through to completion: authors should not expect that other project @@ -184,23 +156,21 @@ next major release. In general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very minor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes should be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC. Exactly what counts -as a "very minor change" is up to the sub-team to decide; check -[Sub-team specific guidelines] for more details. +as a "very minor change" is up to the core-team to decide. ## Reviewing RFCs [Reviewing RFCs]: #reviewing-rfcs -While the RFC pull request is up, the sub-team may schedule meetings with the +While the RFC pull request is up, the core-team may schedule meetings with the author and/or relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues in greater detail, -and in some cases the topic may be discussed at a sub-team meeting. In either +and in some cases the topic may be discussed at a core-team meeting. In either case a summary from the meeting will be posted back to the RFC pull request. -A sub-team makes final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks -are well understood. These decisions can be made at any time, but the sub-team -will regularly issue decisions. When a decision is made, the RFC pull request +The core-team makes final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks +are well understood. When a decision is made, the RFC pull request will either be merged or closed. In either case, if the reasoning is not clear -from the discussion in thread, the sub-team will add a comment describing the +from the discussion in thread, the core-team will add a comment describing the rationale for the decision. @@ -210,9 +180,10 @@ rationale for the decision. Some accepted RFCs represent vital features that need to be implemented right away. Other accepted RFCs can represent features that can wait until some arbitrary developer feels like doing the work. Every accepted RFC has an -associated issue tracking its implementation in the Rust repository; thus that -associated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the -team uses for all issues in the Rust repository. +associated issue tracking its implementation in the kartevonmorgen or +openfairdb repository; thus that associated issue can be assigned a priority +via the triage process that the team uses for all issues in the +kartevonmorgen or openfairdb repository. The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for @@ -230,10 +201,9 @@ Some RFC pull requests are tagged with the "postponed" label when they are closed (as part of the rejection process). An RFC closed with "postponed" is marked as such because we want neither to think about evaluating the proposal nor about implementing the described feature until some time in the future, and -we believe that we can afford to wait until then to do so. Historically, -"postponed" was used to postpone features until after 1.0. Postponed pull +we believe that we can afford to wait until then to do so. Postponed pull requests may be re-opened when the time is right. We don't have any formal -process for that, you should ask members of the relevant sub-team. +process for that, you should ask members of the core-team. Usually an RFC pull request marked as "postponed" has already passed an informal first round of evaluation, namely the round of "do we think we would @@ -249,11 +219,8 @@ The process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present circumstances. As usual, we are trying to let the process be driven by consensus and community norms, not impose more structure than necessary. - -[official Discord server]: https://discord.gg/rust-lang -[developer discussion forum]: http://internals.rust-lang.org/ -[RFC repository]: http://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs -[sub-team]: http://www.rust-lang.org/team.html +[RFC repository]: http://github.com/kartevonmorgen/rfcs +[core-team]: http://bildungsagenten.org/kartevonmorgen/ ## License [License]: #license @@ -263,7 +230,7 @@ This repository is currently in the process of being licensed under either of: * Apache License, Version 2.0, ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) * MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) -at your option. Some parts of the repository are already licensed according to those terms. For more see [RFC 2044](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2044) and its [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43461). +at your option. Some parts of the repository are already licensed according to those terms. ### Contributions