[Gnu-arch-users] [ARCH RFC] formalizing the distinction between arch and tla a bit more

[Colin Walters]

Hi,

I have been thinking recently that we need to be more formal about the
distinction between the arch protocol and tla.  Some of the changes
being tossed around on this list are changes to the core protocol.  We
have to live with any changes to the protocol *forever*.  So they should
be subject to much more intense scrutiny and discussion.  Changes to tla
can always be fixed or even tossed out completely later.

So I'd like to propose a simple system - any core changes to arch should
be proposed here, and marked by [ARCH RFC] in the subject line (this
message is kind of a meta-RFC).  Andrew could then modify the bugtracker
to keep track of these too.

For example, my earlier work on making the tree's toplevel .arch-
inventory file more powerful is a change to the core protocol, and
should be discussed as an arch RFC.  Similarly, Tom's [BUG]s about
things like "system branches" are core protocol changes.  But If Tom
just wants to embed Furth in tla for implementing new commands, that's
unrelated to Arch, and can just be a regular bug.

I hope that making this distinction a bit more formal will clarify the
issues we've been discussing, and (probably more importantly) serve to
document these changes for any future implementors of the Arch protocol.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part