> i don't mind if we have a bunch of closed tracking issues. we can categorize > them. i agree with @u99127 that maintaining a record is important, and i also > think it makes sense that the first PR to land on a tracking issue would be > its RFC. i think committers should be able to notify authors at the time that > it makes sense to create an issue, if authors don't do it pre-emptively.
I personally don't like a bunch of useless issues. Most issues in main TVM repo don't categorize well, so it might be confusing if we attempt to add more. Meanwhile, I don't think we will lose any record if tracking issues aren't opened for rejected RFCs, as all important records and discussions should be documented in the RFC PR. In contrast, tracking issue is just a "tracking" issue. If it has important information we don't have in the RFC, then it should be something wrong IMHO. On the other hand, of course we cannot prevent authors from creating an issue at the time of filing the RFC PR if they prefer. We just don't explicitly enforce them to do so. I think that's why the current guideline suggests creating a tracking issue after merging RFC PR, and I do agree with this policy. With the updated guideline, we just ask committers to be in charge of making sure the issue is created before merging the RFC PR and help update the issue (add the RFC ID after merged and the label). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/13#issuecomment-887750459
