-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathmep-0001.txt
332 lines (245 loc) · 14 KB
/
mep-0001.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
MEP: 1
Title: MEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Denys Duchier <[email protected]>
Status: Active
Type: Informational
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 28-Oct-2004
Post-History:
Credits
=======
The MEP concept is borrowed from Python's [#Python]_ PEPs [#PEPS]_. Much of
this document is adapted from PEP-0001 [#PEP1]_ by Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy
Hylton, and David Goodger, and from GLEP-0001 [#GLEP1]_ by Grant Goodyear.
What is a MEP?
==============
MEP stands for "Mozart Enhancement Proposal". A MEP is a design document
providing information to the Mozart/Oz community, or describing a new feature
for Mozart/Oz. The MEP should provide a concise technical specification of the
feature and rationale for the feature.
We intend MEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing *significant* new
features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the
design decisions that have gone into Mozart/Oz. The MEP author is responsible
for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.
Because the MEPs are maintained as text files under CVS control, their revision
history is the historical record of the feature proposal [#CVS]_.
Kinds of MEPs
=============
There are two kinds of MEPs. A Standards Track MEP describes a new feature or
implementation for Mozart/Oz. An Informational MEP describes provides general
guidelines or information to the Mozart/Oz community, but does not propose a new
feature. Informational MEPs do not necessarily represent a Mozart/Oz community
consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore
Informational MEPs or follow their advice.
MEP Work Flow
=============
The MEP editors assign MEP numbers and change their status. The current MEP
editors are Denys Duchier and Kevin Glynn. Please send all MEP-related email to
The MEP process begins with a new idea for Mozart/Oz. It is highly recommended
that a single MEP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focussed
the MEP, the more successful it tends to be. The MEP editors reserve the right
to reject MEP proposals if they appear too unfocussed or too broad. If in
doubt, split your MEP into several well-focussed ones.
Each MEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the MEP using the style and
format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and
attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The MEP champion
(a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is MEP-able.
Small enhancements or patches often don't need a MEP and can be injected into
the Mozart/Oz development work flow with an enhancement "bug" submitted to the
Mozart/Oz bugzilla [#BUGS]_.
The MEP champion then emails the MEP editors <[email protected]> with a proposed
title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the MEP. This draft must be
written in MEP style as described below.
If the MEP editor accepts the MEP, he will assign the MEP a number, label it as
Standards Track (a better name would be nice here -- suggestions?) or
Informational, give it status "Draft", and create and check-in the initial draft
of the MEP. The MEP editors will not unreasonably deny a MEP. Reasons for
denying MEP status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound, not
providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in
keeping with Mozart/Oz philosophy.
If a pre-MEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-MEP to the
[email protected] mailing list to help flesh it out, gain feedback and
consensus from the community at large, and improve the MEP for re-submission.
The author of the MEP is then responsible for posting the MEP to the hackers
mailing list, and marshaling community support for it. As updates are
necessary, the MEP author can check in new versions if they have CVS commit
permissions, or can email new MEP versions to the MEP editors for committing.
Standards Track MEPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference
implementation. The MEP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference
implementation is begun, unless a reference implementation will aid people in
studying the MEP. Standards Track MEPs must include an implementation -- in the
form of code, patch, or URL to same -- before it can be considered Final.
MEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a MEP before
submitting it for review. A MEP that has not been discussed on
[email protected] will not be accepted.
Once the authors have completed a MEP, they must inform the MEP editors that it
is ready for review. MEPs are reviewed by the Mozart/Oz Board, who may approve
or reject a MEP outright, or send it back to the author(s) for revision.
For a MEP to be approved it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a
clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement
must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable,
must be solid and must not complicate the distribution unduly. Finally, a
proposed enhancement must satisfy the philosophy of Mozart/Oz.
Once a MEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed.
When the reference implementation is complete and accepted, the status will be
changed to "Final".
A MEP can also be assigned status "Deferred". The MEP author or editor can
assign the MEP this status when no progress is being made on the MEP. Once a
MEP is deferred, the MEP editor can re-assign it to draft status.
A MEP can also be "Rejected". Perhaps after all is said and done it was not a
good idea. It is still important to have a record of this fact.
MEPs can also be replaced by a different MEP, rendering the original obsolete
(where version 2 of a policy, for example, might replace version 1).
MEP work flow is as follows::
Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced
^
+----> Rejected
v
Deferred
Some Informational MEPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never
meant to be completed. E.g. MEP 1 (this MEP).
What belongs in a successful MEP?
=================================
Each MEP should have the following parts:
1. Preamble -- RFC 822 style headers containing meta-data about the MEP,
including the MEP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of
44 characters), the names, and optionally the contact info for each author,
etc.
2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being
addressed.
3. Motivation -- The motivation is critical for MEPs that want to modify
Mozart/Oz functionality. It should clearly explain why the existing
functionality or policy is inadequate to address the problem that the MEP
solves. MEP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected
outright.
4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe the specific
areas of Mozart/Oz that would be touched by this MEP. If new functionality
is being introduced, what packages will that functionality affect? If new
policy, who will be affected?
5. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what
motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It
should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work,
e.g. how the feature is supported in other distributions.
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and
discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
6. Backwards Compatibility -- All MEPs must include a section describing any
issues of backwards incompatibilities and their severity. The MEP must
explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. (Even
if there are none, this section should be included to clearly state that
fact.) MEP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise
may be rejected outright.
7. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed
before any MEP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before
the MEP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale
first and reach consensus on it before writing code or significantly
modifying ebuilds.
8. Copyright/public domain -- Each MEP must either be explicitly labelled as
placed in the public domain (see this MEP as an example) or licensed under
the Open Publication License [#OPL].
MEP Formating and Template
==========================
There are two MEP formats available to authors: plaintext and reStructuredText
[#ReSTHOME]_.
Plaintext MEPs are written in plain ASCII text, contain minimal structural
markup, and should adhere to a rigid style. MEP 9 contains a boilerplate
template [#TXT]_ you can use to get started writing your plaintext MEP.
ReStructuredText MEPs allow for rich markup that is still quite easy to read,
but results in much better-looking and more functional HTML. MEP 2 contains a
boilerplate template [#ReST]_ for use with reStructuredText MEPs.
MEP Header Preamble
===================
Each MEP must begin with an RFC 2822 style header preamble. The headers
must appear in the following order. Headers marked with "*" are
optional and are described below. All other headers are required. ::
MEP: <mep number>
Title: <mep title>
Version: <cvs version string>
Last-Modified: <cvs date string>
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
* Discussions-To: <email address>
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Rejected |
Final | Replaced>
Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
* Content-Type: <text/plain | text/x-rst>
* Requires: <mep numbers>
Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
Post-History: <dates of postings to hackers>
* Replaces: <mep number>
* Replaced-By: <mep number>
The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses
of all the authors/owners of the MEP. The format of the Author header
value must be
Random J. User <[email protected]>
if the email address is included, and just
Random J. User
if the address is not given.
If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following RFC
2822 continuation line conventions. Note that personal email addresses in MEPs
will be obscured as a defense against spam harvesters.
While a MEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft phase),
a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where the MEP is
being discussed. No Discussions-To header is necessary if the MEP is being
discussed privately with the author, or on the hackers mailing list. Note that
email addresses in the Discussions-To header will not be obscured.
The Type header specifies the type of MEP: Informational or Standards Track.
The format of a MEP is specified with a Content-Type header, which should read
"text/plain" for plaintext MEPs and "text/x-rst" for ReStructuredText MEPs.
The Created header records the date that the MEP was assigned a number, while
Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the MEP are
posted to hackers. Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g.
14-Aug-2001.
MEPs may have a Requires header, indicating the MEP numbers that this MEP
depends on.
MEPs may also have a Replaced-By header indicating that a MEP has been
rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the MEP
that replaces the current document. The newer MEP must have a Replaces
header containing the number of the MEP that it rendered obsolete.
Reporting MEP Bugs, or Submitting MEP Updates
=============================================
How you report a bug, or submit a MEP update depends on several factors, such
as the maturity of the MEP, the preferences of the MEP author, and the
nature of your comments. For the early draft stages of the MEP, it's
probably best to send your comments and changes directly to the MEP author.
For more mature, or finished MEPs you may want to submit corrections to the
Mozart/Oz bugzilla [#BUGS]_ so that your changes don't get lost.
When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first with the
MEP author and/or MEP editors.
MEP authors who are also Mozart/Oz developers can update the MEPs
themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.
Transferring MEP Ownership
==========================
It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of MEPs to a new
champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author
of the transferred MEP, but that's really up to the original author. A good
reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the
time or interest in updating it or following through with the MEP process, or
has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to
email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with
the direction of the MEP. We try to build consensus around a MEP, but if
that's not possible, you can always submit a competing MEP.
If you are interested in assuming ownership of a MEP, send a message asking
to take over, addressed to both the original author and the MEP editors
<[email protected]>. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a
timely manner, the MEP editors will make a unilateral decision (it's not like
such decisions can't be reversed :).
References and Footnotes
========================
.. [#PYTHON] http://www.python.org
.. [#PEPS] http://www.python.org/peps
.. [#PEP1] http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
.. [#GLEP1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html
.. [#CVS] This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
for retrieving older revisions.
.. [#ReST] MEP 2, Sample ReStructuredText MEP Template,
(http://www.mozart-oz.org/meps/mep-0002.html)
.. [#TXT] MEP 3, Sample Plaintext MEP Template,
(http://www.mozart-oz.org/meps/mep-0003.html)
.. [#BUGS] [email protected]
.. [#OPL] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
.. [#ReSTHOME] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html
Copyright
=========
This document has been placed in the public domain.