You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> on 2020/05/13 09:29:28 UTC
Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Hi All,
The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know
what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's useful?
So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we write an
RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from how
we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further from
the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should we
leave it at a certain point?
I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the
high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we
continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
Cheers
Garren
Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Technically, the code still isn't on master yet.
:D
-Joan "can we please merge to master already" Touzet
On 2020-05-19 15:19, Paul Davis wrote:
> Can +1 but its gonna feel really silly when I think about how the code
> is already merged...
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Looks like the Mango one has the required +1 already.
>>
>> There's reviews of the map index one by Adam, Paul, and Mike (Rhodes)
>> but neither have explicitly +1'ed. Can any of you get to this?
>>
>> I'd rather not be the deciding +1 right now, too much else on my plate
>> to give this the attention it deserves for that - but I have skimmed it.
>>
>> -Joan
>>
>> On 2020-05-18 7:49, Garren Smith wrote:
>>> Great thanks for the feedback. Its good to know that they are still
>>> considered useful. I've updated my mango and map index RFC's to match the
>>> current implementations.
>>> I would like to merge them in.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Garren
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's
>>>> being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the
>>>> basis for eventual documentation.
>>>>
>>>> I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but
>>>> it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a
>>>> few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo.
>>>>
>>>> My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they
>>>> were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs.
>>>>
>>>> Is that too onerous of a request?
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in
>>>> great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really
>>>> needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source
>>>> material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is
>>>> meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line
>>>> with expectations.
>>>>
>>>> -Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>>>> I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of
>>>> “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be
>>>> a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if
>>>> there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a
>>>> note to dev@ to call that out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still
>>>> capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to
>>>> update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know
>>>>>> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's
>>>> useful?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we
>>>> write an
>>>>>> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from
>>>> how
>>>>>> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
>>>>>> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further
>>>> from
>>>>>> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should
>>>> we
>>>>>> leave it at a certain point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the
>>>>>> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we
>>>>>> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
>>>>>> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Garren
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
Can +1 but its gonna feel really silly when I think about how the code
is already merged...
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Looks like the Mango one has the required +1 already.
>
> There's reviews of the map index one by Adam, Paul, and Mike (Rhodes)
> but neither have explicitly +1'ed. Can any of you get to this?
>
> I'd rather not be the deciding +1 right now, too much else on my plate
> to give this the attention it deserves for that - but I have skimmed it.
>
> -Joan
>
> On 2020-05-18 7:49, Garren Smith wrote:
> > Great thanks for the feedback. Its good to know that they are still
> > considered useful. I've updated my mango and map index RFC's to match the
> > current implementations.
> > I would like to merge them in.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Garren
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's
> >> being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the
> >> basis for eventual documentation.
> >>
> >> I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but
> >> it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a
> >> few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo.
> >>
> >> My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they
> >> were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs.
> >>
> >> Is that too onerous of a request?
> >>
> >> I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in
> >> great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really
> >> needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source
> >> material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is
> >> meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line
> >> with expectations.
> >>
> >> -Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet
> >>
> >> On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> >>> I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of
> >> “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be
> >> a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if
> >> there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a
> >> note to dev@ to call that out.
> >>>
> >>> I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still
> >> capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to
> >> update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers, Adam
> >>>
> >>>> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know
> >>>> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's
> >> useful?
> >>>>
> >>>> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we
> >> write an
> >>>> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from
> >> how
> >>>> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
> >>>> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further
> >> from
> >>>> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should
> >> we
> >>>> leave it at a certain point?
> >>>>
> >>>> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the
> >>>> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we
> >>>> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
> >>>> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Garren
> >>>
> >>
> >
Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Looks like the Mango one has the required +1 already.
There's reviews of the map index one by Adam, Paul, and Mike (Rhodes)
but neither have explicitly +1'ed. Can any of you get to this?
I'd rather not be the deciding +1 right now, too much else on my plate
to give this the attention it deserves for that - but I have skimmed it.
-Joan
On 2020-05-18 7:49, Garren Smith wrote:
> Great thanks for the feedback. Its good to know that they are still
> considered useful. I've updated my mango and map index RFC's to match the
> current implementations.
> I would like to merge them in.
>
> Cheers
> Garren
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's
>> being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the
>> basis for eventual documentation.
>>
>> I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but
>> it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a
>> few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo.
>>
>> My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they
>> were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs.
>>
>> Is that too onerous of a request?
>>
>> I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in
>> great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really
>> needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source
>> material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is
>> meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line
>> with expectations.
>>
>> -Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet
>>
>> On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>> I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of
>> “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be
>> a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if
>> there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a
>> note to dev@ to call that out.
>>>
>>> I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still
>> capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to
>> update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Adam
>>>
>>>> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know
>>>> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's
>> useful?
>>>>
>>>> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we
>> write an
>>>> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from
>> how
>>>> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
>>>> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further
>> from
>>>> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should
>> we
>>>> leave it at a certain point?
>>>>
>>>> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the
>>>> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we
>>>> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
>>>> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Garren
>>>
>>
>
Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Posted by Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org>.
Great thanks for the feedback. Its good to know that they are still
considered useful. I've updated my mango and map index RFC's to match the
current implementations.
I would like to merge them in.
Cheers
Garren
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's
> being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the
> basis for eventual documentation.
>
> I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but
> it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a
> few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo.
>
> My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they
> were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs.
>
> Is that too onerous of a request?
>
> I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in
> great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really
> needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source
> material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is
> meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line
> with expectations.
>
> -Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet
>
> On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> > I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of
> “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be
> a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if
> there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a
> note to dev@ to call that out.
> >
> > I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still
> capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to
> update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value.
> >
> > Cheers, Adam
> >
> >> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know
> >> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's
> useful?
> >>
> >> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we
> write an
> >> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from
> how
> >> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
> >> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further
> from
> >> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should
> we
> >> leave it at a certain point?
> >>
> >> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the
> >> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we
> >> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
> >> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Garren
> >
>
Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's
being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the
basis for eventual documentation.
I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but
it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a
few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo.
My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they
were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs.
Is that too onerous of a request?
I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in
great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really
needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source
material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is
meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line
with expectations.
-Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet
On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a note to dev@ to call that out.
>
> I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value.
>
> Cheers, Adam
>
>> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know
>> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's useful?
>>
>> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we write an
>> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from how
>> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
>> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further from
>> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should we
>> leave it at a certain point?
>>
>> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the
>> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we
>> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
>> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Garren
>
Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Posted by Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>.
I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a note to dev@ to call that out.
I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value.
Cheers, Adam
> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know
> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's useful?
>
> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we write an
> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from how
> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further from
> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should we
> leave it at a certain point?
>
> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the
> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we
> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
>
> Cheers
> Garren