On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 2:49 PM Girish Sharma <scrapmachi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good proposal Asaf. > I've also wondered why the PIP creation and discussion process is so > separated. The PIP discussion and voting starts off as a GitHub issue, but > all of its discussion happens here on the mailing list. Is there scope of > improvement in that process as well? > Not sure I follow. Can you outline the problem exactly? > > Regards > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:16 PM tison <ti...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Asaf, > > > > I agree that, generally, a PIP is written as a whole and paste as the > body. > > So +1 for your proposal. > > > > Additionally, I'm thinking of moving the doc of procedure (wiki/PIP.md) > to > > the contributions guide and use the new markdown template to supersede > the > > wiki/PIP-template.md. Then we don't need to hold the wiki folder. > > > > It can be an extended version to your proposal, so let's keep on your > > proposal in this thread. Just for your reference. > > > > Best, > > tison. > > > > > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月26日周日 19:18写道： > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to suggest two changes I'd like to make to the PIP design > > > template: > > > 1. Remove the form - just have a markdown template fill the issue body > as > > > it is created. > > > 2. Change the PIP template structure > > > > > > == Removing the form > > > > > > Today, when you want to submit a PIP, you are required to fill out a > form > > > with boxes composed of 3-4 lines length. > > > It's not good because: > > > * It broadcasts to the author: we want a very small PIP, something that > > > fits those small boxes. > > > * It makes the PIP look like a bug, where you fill out fields. > > > * It doesn't allow having H2 headings, only H1 headings, thus limiting > > the > > > structure. > > > > > > A PIP is a design essentially, something 1-3 pages long. Thus, > > > people take the time to write it down. Preferably, they copy paste the > > body > > > of the PIP issue, and use it to fill in sections. > > > > > > My suggestion is to define an issue template using only markdown, > > without a > > > form. > > > > > > == Changing PIP Structure > > > > > > Today the structure of the PIP doc (pasted below), is missing a section > > and > > > generally aims to jump directly into API changes / code / > implementation. > > > This results in lots of back and forth emails in an attempt to get the > > > following essentials: > > > * All required background knowledge to understand the proposal > > > * A high level overview of the proposed solution > > > * Understanding how this proposal will be monitored > > > * What steps exactly I need to take if I revert to the previous > version. > > > > > > The structure I propose below aims to reduce that friction and get all > > PIP > > > aligned to provide that information. > > > > > > === Today's structure > > > > > > # Motivation > > > * "Explain why this change is needed, what benefits it would bring to > > > Apache Pulsar and what problem it's trying to solve." > > > # Goal > > > * "Define the scope of this proposal. Given the motivation stated > above, > > > what are the problems that this proposal is addressing and what other > > items > > > will be considering out of scope, perhaps to be left to a different > PIP." > > > # API Changes > > > * "Illustrate all the proposed changes to the API or wire protocol, > with > > > examples of all the newly added classes/methods, including Javadoc" > > > # Implementation > > > * "This should be a detailed description of all the changes that are > > > expected to be made. It should be detailed enough that any developer > that > > > is familiar with Pulsar internals would be able to understand all the > > parts > > > of the code changes for this proposal." > > > * "This should also serve as documentation for any person that is > trying > > to > > > understand or debug the behavior of a certain feature." > > > # Alernatives > > > * "If there are alternatives that were already considered by the > authors > > > or, after the discussion, by the community, and were rejected, please > > list > > > them here along with the reason why they were rejected" > > > # Anything else? > > > > > > > > > === My suggestion > > > > > > # Motivation and Background information > > > * Give a high level explanation on all concepts you will be using > > > throughout this document. For example, if you want to talk about > > Persistent > > > Subscriptions, explain briefly (1 paragraph) what this is. If you're > > going > > > to talk about Transaction Buffer, explain briefly what this is. If > you're > > > going to change something specific, that goes into a bit more detail > > about > > > it and how it works. The Litmus test: I can read the design document > and > > > understand the problem statement and what you plan to change *without* > > > resorting to a couple of hours of code reading just to start having a > > high > > > level understanding of the change. > > > * Provide links where possible if a person wants to dig deeper into the > > > background information. > > > * Explain what is the problem you're trying to solve - current > situation. > > > * This section is the "Why" of your proposal. > > > > > > # Goals > > > ## Scope > > > * Describe the goals of your proposal, and why it benefits Apache > Pulsar > > > ## Out of Scope > > > * Describe what you have decided to keep out of scope, perhaps left > for a > > > different PIP/s. > > > > > > # High-level Design > > > * Describe in high level, end-to-end, the solution. This should be a > few > > > paragraphs long as a guideline. > > > * Reading this would allow me to understand the solution from a bird's > > eye > > > view, end to end. > > > * DON'T put all the design in a Google Doc and share the link here, as > it > > > won't last the test of time. > > > > > > # Detailed Design > > > * Describe in detail what you plan to do to achieve your high level > > design > > > * It should include the following if applicable: > > > * REST API Changes > > > * Protocol Changes > > > > > > # Monitoring > > > * Describe exactly what you will add to Pulsar allowing you to > > > monitor/observe this proposal? > > > * If those are metrics, provide the names, description, labels and > > units > > > * Explain what constitutes abnormal that I should pay attention to > > > > > > # Backward Compatibility > > > * Describe exact instructions if someone needs to revert from a version > > > containing it to a previous version > > > > > > # Alternatives > > > * Describe alternative design decisions and why you have not opted for > > them > > > > > > # General notes > > > * Any general notes you wish to make > > > > > > # Links (Updated afterwards) > > > * Mailing List discussion thread: > > > * Mailing List voting thread: > > > > > > == > > > Would love to hear what you think about it, before opening a PR about > > this. > > > > > > > > -- > Girish Sharma >
