[Qgis-developer] Resurrecting the RFC (QEP - QGIS Enhancement Proposal)

[Even Rouault]

Hi,

I'm mostly an observer of QGIS dev, but I think it would be a nice move to help
coordination and formalize big changes. GDAL or MapServer have been successfully
following such a practice for years. See
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/RfcList or
http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/index.html for possible ideas for the
Content table of a RFC (mostly what Nathan suggested)
The voting is typically limited to PSC members, whereas the discussion phase is
open to everyone to give their input.

Even

> Hey all,
>
> I would like to raise something I have been considering for a while now. We
> are becoming a large project, in code and users, and there has been some
> recent issues of developers doing work only for there to be disagreements
> on the implementation. I would like resurrect the use of RFCs, or I think
> would should name them QEP (QGIS Enhancement Proposal because that sounds
> much cooler :)
>
> My thinking behind this was:
>
> - QGIS is picking up pace in popularity and use so we need something to
> formalise the future feature set and any improvements for the next version.
>  Most people know the Python project uses the idea of PEPs in order to
> document what new major features are coming in X version and to explain the
> rational, or reasons .  I have found this handy to be able to look at
> detailed overview of why a feature made it or didn't, or when it might make
> it, or if ever.
>
> - This is more then just using the bug tracker to log future features. This
> is something where we can have more detail and then break it down into sub
> tasks which can live in the bug tracker but linked to the QEP (RFC).
>
> - The QEP should also have formal voting and discussion around the
> proposal. This should be limited to a small pool of developers.
>
> - The QEP could also list changes the API, or if breaking changes need to
> be made.
>
> - Things like how the new feature might fit into other future plans.
>
> - QEPs should list as much detail as possible in order to help everyone see
> the bigger picture with the feature or change.
>
> Another reason I was thinking about this was in order to consolidate major
> features and collaborate better. Emails are fine but get lost and forgotten
> very easily, the bug tracker is the same.  The QEP can link to the emails
> and tickets for future reference.  QEPs should be the central point for the
> feature linking to everything that is related.
>
> Tim has been using GitHub for inaSAFE RFCs and it looks good. IMO I would
> say we should use that.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Nathan
>


-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com