From ac4606ef00e846bdd70fc8e36469a098297cc0c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mitchell Valine Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 15:35:41 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Adds issue and PR templates. Adds templates for guidance when creating tracking issues and pull requests. Clarifies rfc lifecycle states further in readme. --- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/tracking-issue.md | 28 +++++ .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md | 15 +++ 0000-template.md | 15 ++- CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 6 +- README.md | 154 ++++++++++++++--------- rfc-states.svg | 1 - 6 files changed, 157 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) create mode 100644 .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/tracking-issue.md create mode 100644 .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md delete mode 100644 rfc-states.svg diff --git a/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/tracking-issue.md b/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/tracking-issue.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..09c33be50 --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/tracking-issue.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +title: "RFC: title" +labels: tracking issue +--- + + + +|PR|Champion| +|--|--------| +|# | | + +## Description + + + +## Progress + + + + +- [x] - Tracking Issue Created +- [ ] - RFC PR Created +- [ ] - Core Team Member Assigned +- [ ] - Initial Approval / Final Comment Period +- [ ] - Ready For Implementation + + - [ ] implementation issue 1 +- [ ] - Resolved diff --git a/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9720919c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +--- +title: "RFC: # " <!-- <rfc#> is the tracking issue number and <title> is the rfc name --> +--- + +## Notes + +<!-- Call out suggestions for reviewers to discuss --> + +<!-- link to the proposal document for readers to view rendered version --> +### [Rendered](/my-fork/text/xxxx.md) + +--- + +_By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under +the terms of the Apache-2.0 license_ diff --git a/0000-template.md b/0000-template.md index 5272e1a39..9badef82d 100644 --- a/0000-template.md +++ b/0000-template.md @@ -24,6 +24,11 @@ the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind. +# Design Summary + +Summarize the approach of the feature design in a couple of sentences. Call out +any known patterns or best practices the design is based around. + # Detailed Design This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody @@ -64,9 +69,13 @@ this a breaking change? How can we assist in adoption? # Unresolved questions -- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged? -- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization? -- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC? +- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process + before this gets merged? +- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation + of this feature before stabilization? +- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be + addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this + RFC? # Future Possibilities diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md index ec98f2b76..8f18aeabb 100644 --- a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ ## Code of Conduct -This project has adopted the [Amazon Open Source Code of Conduct](https://aws.github.io/code-of-conduct). -For more information see the [Code of Conduct FAQ](https://aws.github.io/code-of-conduct-faq) or contact +This project has adopted the +[Amazon Open Source Code of Conduct](https://aws.github.io/code-of-conduct). For +more information see the +[Code of Conduct FAQ](https://aws.github.io/code-of-conduct-faq) or contact opensource-codeofconduct@amazon.com with any additional questions or comments. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index afc8737fa..3e5b47b4d 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -3,73 +3,78 @@ 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 CDK -core team. +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 CDK core team. -The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a -consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project. +The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and +controlled path for new features to enter the project. [Pending RFC List](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/pulls) ## When to follow this process You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial" -changes to [AWS CDK](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk), [JSII](https://github.com/aws/jsii), or related tools. Some examples that would +changes to [AWS CDK](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk), +[JSII](https://github.com/aws/jsii), or related tools. Some examples that would benefit from an RFC are: -- Any change to existing APIs that would break existing code. +- Any change to existing APIs that could break existing code. - The removal of existing features or public APIs. -- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they - do not include code changes to CDK itself. +- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they do not + include code changes to CDK itself. +- Changes to the documented contribution workflow. +- Features that cross multiple construct libraries. +- Additions or changes to framework capabilities. +- Additions or changes to formal specifications like cloud assembly, tree.json, + jsii, etc. The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on your proposal before it becomes a part of a released version of CDK. Quite often, even -proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider -group of interested people have a chance to weigh in. +proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider group +of interested people have a chance to weigh in. The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed -feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into -the design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully +feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into the +design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully implemented. -If you submit a pull request to implement a new major feature without going through -the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first. +If you submit a pull request to implement a new major feature without going +through the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC +first. Some changes do not require an RFC: - Bugfixes for known issues. -- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers-of-CDK, - invisible to users-of-CDK. +- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers-of-CDK, invisible to + users-of-CDK. - Additions of missing L1 or L2 constructs. Unless the service and/or constructs - are especially complex or intentionally diverge from existing api design - best practices. + are especially complex or intentionally diverge from existing api design best + practices. ## What the process is -In short, to get a major feature added to CDK, one usually first gets -the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC -is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion -into CDK. +In short, to get a major feature added to CDK, one usually first gets the RFC +merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is 'ready' +and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into CDK. -- [Create a tracking issue](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/issues/new) - for the proposed feature. +- [Create a tracking issue](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/issues/new?template=tracking-issue.md) + for the proposed feature if one doesn't already exist. Use the tracking issue + template as a guide. If a tracking issue already exists, make sure to update + it and assign it to let others know you're working on a proposal. - Fork the RFC repo https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs -- Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where 'my-feature' is - descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet. +- Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/<rfc#>-<my-feature>.md` where <rfc#> is the + tracking issue number and <my-feature> is the rfc title. - Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: **We welcome all honest efforts to contribute.**. -- Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design - feedback from the core team and the larger community, and the author should - be prepared to make revisions in response. - - The RFC number is the PR ID, change `0000-my-feature.md` to - `<pr-number>-my-feature.md` and add the PR # to the template document - where needed once it is known. - - Link to the RFC PR from the tracking issue. -- 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. -- Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate for - inclusion in CDK. +- Submit a pull request with the title `RFC: <rfc#> <title>` where <rfc#> is the + tracking issue number and title is the name of the proposal. As a pull request + the RFC will receive design feedback from the core team and the larger + community, and the author should be prepared to make revisions in response. + - Update the tracking issue with a link to the RFC PR. +- 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. +- Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate for inclusion + in CDK. - RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in CDK will enter a "final comment period" lasting 3 calendar days. The beginning of this period will be signaled by a team member adding a comment and label on the RFCs pull request. @@ -78,31 +83,67 @@ into CDK. - An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of the team should then close the RFCs associated pull request. -- An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team - member will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC - will become 'active'. +- An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team member + will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC will + become 'ready'. A core team member will be assigned to 'champion' each proposal. They will -generally be the ones updating the PR's state as it moves through the process. -They can decide when a final comment period is triggered. +generally be the ones updating the RFCs state in the tracking issue as it moves +through the process. They can decide when a final comment period is triggered. ## The RFC life-cycle -![rfc states](./rfc-states.svg) - -Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the feature -as a pull request to the aws-cdk or related repos. Becoming 'active' is not a +![rfc-states](https://g.gravizo.com/svg?digraph%20states%20{node%20[shape=ellipse];proposed%20[label%20=%20%22Proposed%22];pending%20[label%20=%20%22Pending%22];fcp%20[label%20=%20%22Final%20Comment%20Period%22];ready%20[label%20=%20%22Ready%22];resolved%20[label%20=%20%22Resolved%22];proposed%20-%3E%20pending%20[label%20=%20%22%20rfc%20pr%20created%22];pending%20-%3E%20pending%20[label%20=%20%22%20revisions%22];pending%20-%3E%20fcp%20[label%20=%20%22core%20team%20approval%20%20%20%20%22];fcp%20-%3E%20pending%20[label%20=%20%22%20revision%20requested%22];fcp%20-%3E%20ready%20[label%20=%20%22%20merged%22];ready%20-%3E%20resolved%20[label%20=%20%22%20implementation%20complete%22];}) + +<!-- for later reference from renderer --> +<details> +<summary></summary> +custom_mark10 + digraph states { + node [shape=ellipse]; + proposed [label = "Proposed"]; + pending [label = "Pending"]; + fcp [label = "Final Comment Period"]; + ready [label = "Ready"]; + resolved [label = "Resolved"]; + proposed -> pending [label = " rfc pr created"]; + pending -> pending [label = " revisions"]; + pending -> fcp [label = "core team approval "]; + fcp -> pending [label = " revision requested"]; + fcp -> ready [label = " merged"]; + ready -> resolved [label = " implementation complete"]; + } +custom_mark10 +</details> + +An RFC flows through the following states. + +1. Proposed - A tracking issue has been created with a basic outline of the + proposal. +2. Pending - An RFC document has been written with a detailed design and a PR is + under review. +3. Final Comment Period - A core team member has been assigned to oversee the + proposal and at least 1 core team member has approved the RFC PR. + - An RFC may be reverted or closed during final comment period if a member of + the core team or community raises a previously unforeseen issue that is + cause for concern. +4. Ready - Final comment period is complete and the PR is merged. +5. Resolved - The implementation is complete and merged across appropriate + repositories. + +Once an RFC becomes ready, then authors may implement it and submit the feature +as a pull request to the aws-cdk or related repos. Becoming 'ready' is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle and are amenable to merging it. -Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is 'active' implies +Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is 'ready' implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it. -Modifications to active RFCs can be done in followup PRs. We strive to write -each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature; but -the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to +Modifications to RFCs marked 'ready' can be done in followup PRs. We strive to +write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature; +but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next major release; therefore we try to keep each RFC document somewhat in sync with the feature as planned, tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the @@ -114,9 +155,9 @@ While the author of an RFC (like any other developer) is welcome to offer an implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted, they have no obligation to do so. -If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 'active' RFC, but -cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask -(e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue). +If you are interested in working on the implementation for an RFC marked +'ready', but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel +free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated tracking issue). ## Reviewing RFCs @@ -127,14 +168,15 @@ the feature and its progress. ## Help this is all too informal! -The process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present +The process is intended to be as lightweight and 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. The RFC process itself is subject to changes as dictated by the core team and the community. -**AWS CDK's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [Yarn RFC process], [Rust RFC process], [React RFC process], and [Ember RFC process]** +**AWS CDK's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [Yarn RFC process], [Rust +RFC process], [React RFC process], and [Ember RFC process]** [yarn rfc process]: https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs [rust rfc process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs diff --git a/rfc-states.svg b/rfc-states.svg deleted file mode 100644 index bd232af28..000000000 --- a/rfc-states.svg +++ /dev/null @@ -1 +0,0 @@ -<svg version="1.1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="281.2pt" height="488pt" viewBox="0 0 281.2 488"><style type="text/css">.dashed {stroke-dasharray: 5,5} .dotted {stroke-dasharray: 1,5} .overlay {fill: none; pointer-events: all}</style><g><g transform="translate(4, 484)"><polygon stroke="#fffffe" stroke-opacity="0" fill="#ffffff" points="-4,4 -4,-484 277.2,-484 277.2,4"></polygon><g class="node"><title>issueTracking IssuependingPendingunder_reviewUnder ReviewfcpFinal Comment PeriodactiveActiveresolvedResolvedissue->pending rfc-pr createdpending->under_review core team member assignedunder_review->under_review revisionsunder_review->fcp core team approval fcp->under_review revisions requestedfcp->active mergedactive->resolved implementation complete \ No newline at end of file