Let's review the RFC and get feedback on the scope and general direction
If the group thinks the RFC has merit, and the scope is clear we have a quorum and could vote to move this forward today.
@Jeremy Huff walked us through the RFC... agreed to not read it line-by-line, but at a higher level (paraphrased/summarized)
NOTE: not intended to be comprehensive (not every kind of breaking change is covered in the RFC), but rather illustrative and to serve as guidance
When will a version be decremented?
It isn't clear. Seems like it happened at least once in the past.
Shouldn't happen often, if ever.
It can't hurt to provide guidance on this regardless.
Typo in data model section... "Change of a new optional field"
What about required fields with default values? – Leave this up to the subgroup to sort out.
Do we need to spell out these permutations?
Add a bullet to the clarifications section?
Add something to the terminology section?
What about changes to edge APIs?
Not strictly controlled by OKAPI interfaces
Making breaking changes to edge APIs can really screw things up
@Marc Johnson not making breaking changes here is a policy decision, and really isn't unique to edge APIs. Integrations exist which directly consume backend APIs
What about changes to Kafka message formats/data models?
What about changes to reference data?
Is renaming a module a breaking change?
This is certainly disruptive, especially on the DevOps/SysOps side of things
There could be some policy decisions here
Need to be clear if this is in/out of scope for this RFC?
We ran out of time, but if there is any other feedback, please leave comments in the RFC!