My thoughts; I can't make distinction between feature or bug; it’s a change to
the codebase, if it has greater impact, is sensitive and takes time to build;
then it is a candidate to bring it up and talk about it before implementation.
Sometime its hard to determine/distinguish it, we developer should make a good
judgement of it and be open for any suggestion. Currently we have a RFC
process; adding more process/steps adds additional onus; we can tweak RFC
process or replace it with better option but let's keep it simple/minimal.
On 5/28/21, 11:57 AM, "Jacob Barrett" <jabarr...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Mark Hanson <hans...@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> I think the key difference between what Bill and Jake are saying is that
Bill is saying a new feature needs approval in a more structured way. I think
Bill's process is open the jira, then it is "approved" or "won't do" then work
starts. I think what Jake is saying is a little less structured. That may be my
reading though.
The difference is between bugs vs features. We have a process for features,
lazy consensus on RFCs. We have a process for minor
features/improvements/tasks, greedy concensus on PR approvals.
-Jake
