Documenting the breaking changes

[Frank Warmerdam]

Daniel Morissette wrote:
> 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.

Folks,

I agree with this.

> 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.

And this.

So I guess that makes this official a "me too" post.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org