Data

Tools

Indexes

Applications

Experiments

Awesome

An open API service indexing awesome lists of open source software.

https://github.com/linkerd/rfc

Architectural proposals related to Linkerd.
https://github.com/linkerd/rfc

Last synced: about 1 year ago
JSON representation

Architectural proposals related to Linkerd.

Awesome Lists containing this project

README 

          
# Linkerd RFCs



Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be

implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow. However,

some changes are "substantial" and we ask that these be put through a bit of a

design process to produce a consensus among the Linkerd community.



The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and

controlled path for contributions to enter the project, so that all stakeholders

can be confident about the project direction and maintainability of the

codebase.



## When you need to follow this process



[when you need to follow this process]: #when-you-need-to-follow-this-process



You need to follow this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to

Linkerd2 (Linkerd2-proxy, Linkerd Control Plane) or the RFC process itself. What

constitutes an "substantial" is a foundational concern for the Linkerd project.



Similarly, any technical effort (refactoring, major architectural change) that

will impact a large section of the development community should also be

communicated widely. The Linkerd RFC process is suited for this even if it will

have zero impact on the typical user or operator.



## Before creating an RFC



[before creating an rfc]: #before-creating-an-rfc



A hastily-proposed RFC can hurt its chances of acceptance. Low quality

proposals, proposals for previously-rejected features, or those that don't fit

into the near-term roadmap, may be quickly rejected, which can be demotivating

for the unprepared contributor. Laying some groundwork ahead of the RFC can make

the process smoother.



Although there is no single way to prepare for submitting an RFC, it is

generally a good idea to pursue feedback from other project developers

beforehand, to ascertain that the RFC may be desirable; having a consistent

impact on the project requires concerted effort toward consensus-building.



The most common preparations for writing and submitting an RFC include talking

the idea over on our [Linkerd Slack, #contributors](https://slack.linkerd.io),

or discussing the topic on our [CNCF developer mailing

list](https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-linkerd-dev). You may file issues on this

repo for discussion, but these are not actively looked at by the teams.



As a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing project

developers is a good indication that the RFC is worth pursuing.



## What the process is



[what the process is]: #what-the-process-is



To get a major feature added to Linkerd, one must get the RFC merged into the

RFC repository in either one or two steps.



First, the problem statement should be completed. If one does not intend to

design or implement the RFC, then the proposal can be merged as is after going

through reviews.



Second, the design proposal is completed. Once the design is accepted, the RFC

is considered active and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion

into Linkerd.



If one intends to state the problem and propose a design, then both sections can

be completed in a single review.



### Step 1



1. Fork the [RFC repository](https://github.com/linkerd/rfc)

2. Copy `0000-rfc-template.md` to `problem/0000-my-contribution.md` (where

   "my-contribution" is descriptive.).

3. Fill in the RFC. Leave `Design Proposal` section for `Step 2` if you do not

   intend to propose a design, or would like to first gather feedback on the

   problem.

4. If completing RFC in separate steps, submit a pull request. As a pull request

   `Problem statement` will receive feedback from the larger community, and the

   author should be prepared to revise it in response.



### Step 2



1. Move `problem/0000-my-contribution.md` to `design/0000-my-contribution.md`.

2. Fill in the `Design proposal` section. Put care into the details: RFCs that

   do not present convincing motivation, demonstrate lack of understanding of

   the design's impact, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives

   tend to be poorly-received

3. Submit a pull request. As a pull request `Design proposal` will receive

   feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to

   revise it in response.



### Note



- If you have not already gathered feedback on the problem, it is advised to

  complete the process in two steps; it is better to ensure the problem needs to

  be solved before spending time on the design.

- Each pull request will be labeled with the most relevant reviewer, who will

  lead its triage.

- Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much

  more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments. Feel

  free to reach out to the RFC assignee in particular to get help identifying

  stakeholders and obstacles.

- The team will discuss the RFC pull request, as much as possible in the comment

  thread of the pull request itself. Offline discussion will be summarized on

  the pull request comment thread.



RFCs rarely go through this process unchanged, especially as alternatives and

drawbacks are shown. You can make edits, big and small, to the RFC to clarify or

change the design, but make changes as new commits to the pull request, and

leave a comment on the pull request explaining your changes. Specifically, do

not squash or rebase commits after they are visible on the pull request.



## The RFC life-cycle



[the rfc life-cycle]: #the-rfc-life-cycle



Once an RFC becomes "active" then authors may implement it and submit the

feature as a series of pull requests to the Linkerd2 repo. Being "active" is not

a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will

ultimately be merged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders

have agreed to the feature and are amenable to merging it.



Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is "active" implies

nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does it imply

anything about whether a maintainer has been assigned the task of implementing

the feature. While it is not _necessary_ that the author of the RFC also write

the implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see an RFC through to

completion: authors should not expect that other project developers will take on

responsibility for implementing their accepted feature.



Modifications to "active" RFCs can be done in follow-up pull requests. We strive

to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the

feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged

RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next

major release.



In general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very

minor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes should

be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC. Exactly what counts as a

"very minor change" is up to the team to decide.



## Implementing an RFC



[implementing an rfc]: #implementing-an-rfc



Some accepted RFCs represent vital features that need to be implemented right

away. Other accepted RFCs can represent features that can wait until some

arbitrary developer feels like doing the work. Every accepted RFC has an

associated issue tracking its implementation in the Linkerd2 repository; thus

that associated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the

team uses for all issues in the Linkerd2 repository.



The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author

(like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for review after

the RFC has been accepted.



If you are interested in working on the implementation for an "active" RFC, but

cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask

(e.g.by leaving a comment on the associated issue).



### Help this is all too informal



[help this is all too informal!]: #help-this-is-all-too-informal



The process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present

circumstances. As usual, we are trying to let the process be driven by consensus

and community norms, not impose more structure than necessary.



## License



[license]: #license



This repository is currently licensed under:



- Apache License, Version 2.0, ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or

  

- 



### Contributions



Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted

for inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be

licensed as above, without any additional terms or conditions.