Documenting the breaking changes

[Daniel Morissette]

Steve Lime wrote:
> I'm wondering if an RFC is the right place for long-term policy documents. I suppose they
> are our are best choice. I do think we should support the concept of versions then with each
> version requiring a vote. I can't see creating new RFCs whenever there is a need to tweak
> something.
> 

I agree 100% with versioning of RFCs + vote for relatively small 
changes/updates, especially for RFCs on policies.

However, I think a new RFC may be required for more significant 
revisions that significantly change the scope of a policy RFC, or for 
RFCs on software features after the feature has been released 
officially. What I mean is that I would not want to see a RFC start as a 
simple feature for a given software release and grow into a much larger 
RFC over 2-3 releases of the RFC and of the software. In this case new 
RFCs should be required for each release of the software even if the 
features are related.

> As an aside, I trimmed the migration document for 4.10-> 5.0 last night, defined a few default
> sections and added content related to RFC's 19 and 26. So, that is started...
> 

Perfect. Thanks!

Daniel
-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/