Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of CsMapRfcTemplate


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 8, 2008, 4:53:29 PM (14 years ago)
Author:
hugueswski
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • CsMapRfcTemplate

    v1 v1  
     1This page describes the format to be used when developing [wiki:CsMapRfcs RFCs] for proposal to the [http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/MetaCRS MetaCRS] mailing list and subsequent presentation to the MetaCRS PSC. New RFCs should be created following the instructions at the top of the [wiki:CsMapRfcs RFCs] page.
     2
     3The  original version of this document was based on the RFCs from http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc.
     4
     5RFC Template Version:  1.0
     6Last Modified:  04:50, 3 November 2006 (CET)  (Jason Birch)
     7
     8----
     9= CS-Map RFC # - Title Goes Here =
     10
     11This page contains an change request (RFC) for the CS-Map Open Source project.
     12More CS-Map RFCs can be found on the [wiki:CsMapRfcs RFCs] page.
     13
     14
     15== Status ==
     16
     17||RFC Template Version||(1.0)||
     18||Submission Date||(Date/Time submitted)||
     19||Last Modified||(your name here) [[Timestamp]]||
     20||Author||(your name here)||
     21||RFC Status||(draft, proposed, frozen for vote, adopted, retracted, or rejected)||
     22||Implementation Status||(pending, under development, completed)||
     23||Proposed Milestone||(e.g. 1.1, 1.3, 2.1)||
     24||Assigned PSC guide(s)||(when determined)||
     25||'''Voting History'''||(vote date)||
     26||+1||Frank, Norm||
     27||+0||Mike||
     28||-0|| ||
     29||-1||Hugues (troublemaker) ||
     30||no vote|| ||
     31
     32== Overview ==
     33
     34This section briefly describes the problem set, and the proposed solution in general terms.  It should be deliberately short, a couple of sentences or so.
     35
     36== Motivation ==
     37
     38This is the most important part of the RFC.  It describes the problem domain in detail.  Focusing on this will allow reviewers to fully understand why the proposed change is being made, and potentially suggest different/better ways of accomplishing the desired results.  The more time we spend on understanding the problem, the better our solution will be.
     39
     40== Proposed Solution ==
     41
     42This is a more detailed description of the actual changes desired.  The contents of this section will vary based on the target of the RFC, be it a technical change, website change, or process change.  For example, for a technical change, items such as files, new coordinate system definition, WKT mapping, and API chances would be identified.  For a process change, the new process would be laid out in detail.  For a website change, the files affected would be listed.
     43
     44== Implications ==
     45
     46This section allows discussion of the repercussions of the change, such as whether there will be any breakage in backwards compatibility, if documentation will need to be updated, etc.
     47
     48== Test Plan ==
     49
     50How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable.  New unit tests should be detailed here???
     51
     52== Funding/Resources ==
     53
     54This section will confirm that the proposed feature has enough support to proceed.  This would typically mean that the entity making the changes would put forward the RFC, but a non-developer could act as an RFC author if they are sure they have the funding to cover the change.