@comaniac i view the core data structures and interfaces as part of the design-level documentation. i think they belong in Reference-level explanation. see for example my RFC #8 --this includes the introduced interface as part of the RFC. details such as where code lives are not considered in the RFC.
i don't think an RFC is really very well-written if a reviewer finds the RFC acceptable but the implementation 100% unacceptable beyond a reasonable code-review process. code review should be about aligning on implementation details, and should be guided by the goals set forth in the RFC. another thought I had while considering this proposal: there could be an alternate flow as follows: - proposal thread on Discuss forum - initial sketch of RFC sent as draft PR to tvm-rfcs plus tracking bug - PMC/Committers review RFC sketch and approve/reject - at this point, RFC could either be committed or just assigned an ID number (e.g. commit an empty file to tvm-rfcs to hold the number and associate tracking bug) - implementation proceeds, tracked by bug - to mark the conclusion of RFC implementation, author updates the RFC PR as-built and merges it. the benefits of this arrangement is that there would be a pending code-review where people reviewing the implementation could request additional design-level documentation as complexities are found in implementation. i'm not too sure if i'm attached to this proposal or not yet, but documenting my thought here as it's related. -- 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-887914798
