On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 5:02 PM Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Excellent proposal. > > Inline below. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 26, 2023, at 3:19 AM, Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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" > > Yes this is important as api and similar changes are what triggers > requiring small pips. > The new structure doesn't remove "API Changes" - just places them inside another section (see "=== My Suggestion"). Not sure I follow your intent here perhaps? In general do you like the new proposed structure? > > # 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. > > +1000! A Google doc hides details and obfuscates the design and > motivation. Google docs are not searchable within GitHub. > > We should reject all new PIPs that include Google Docs. > > Best, > Dave > > > > > # 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. > >
