Anil's thoughts parallel what I was trying to describe as well... On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:35 PM Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@vmware.com> wrote:
> 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 > > >
