| Version 2 (modified by , 16 years ago) ( diff ) |
|---|
FDO RFC 31 - Deprecate FdoNls and use of message catalogs
This page contains a request for comments document (RFC) for the FDO Open Source project. More FDO RFCs can be found on the RFCs page.
Status
| RFC Template Version | (1.0) |
| Submission Date | Not submitted yet |
| Last Modified | Traian Stanev 2009-03-16 |
| Author | Traian Stanev |
| RFC Status | draft (draft, proposed, frozen for vote, adopted, retracted, or rejected) |
| Implementation Status | pending (pending, under development, completed) |
| Proposed Milestone | 3.5 or 4.0 |
| Assigned PSC guide(s) | (when determined) |
| Voting History | (vote date) |
| +1 | |
| +0 | |
| -0 | |
| -1 |
Overview
This section briefly describes the problem set, and the proposed solution in general terms. It should be deliberately short, a couple of sentences or so.
Motivation
This 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.
Proposed Solution
This 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, XML schema changes, 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.
Implications
This 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.
Test Plan
How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable. New unit tests should be detailed here???
Funding/Resources
This 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.
