163 lines
6.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
163 lines
6.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _feature-tracking:
|
|
|
|
Feature Tracking
|
|
#################
|
|
|
|
For feature tracking we use Github labels to classify new features and
|
|
enhancements. The following is the description of each category:
|
|
|
|
Enhancement
|
|
Changes to existing features that are not considered a bug and would not
|
|
block a release. This is an incremental enhancement to a feature that already
|
|
exists in Zephyr.
|
|
|
|
Feature request
|
|
A request for the implementation or inclusion of a new unit of functionality
|
|
that is not part of any release plans yet, that has not been vetted, and needs
|
|
further discussion and details.
|
|
|
|
Feature
|
|
A committed and planned unit of functionality with a detailed design and
|
|
implementation proposal and an owner. Features must go through an RFC process
|
|
and must be vetted and discussed in the TSC before a target milestone is set.
|
|
|
|
Hardware Support
|
|
A request or plan to port an existing feature or enhancement to a particular
|
|
hardware platform. This ranges from porting Zephyr itself to a new
|
|
architecture, SoC or board to adding an implementation of a peripheral driver
|
|
API for an existing hardware platform.
|
|
|
|
Meta
|
|
A label to group other GitHub issues that are part of a single feature or unit
|
|
of work.
|
|
|
|
The following workflow should be used to process features:.
|
|
|
|
This is the formal way for asking for a new feature in Zephyr and indicating its
|
|
importance to the project. Often, the requester may have a readiness and
|
|
willingness to drive implementation of the feature in an upcoming release, and
|
|
should assign the request to themselves.
|
|
If not though, an owner will be assigned after evaluation by the TSC.
|
|
A feature request can also have a companion RFC with more details on the feature
|
|
and a proposed design or implementation.
|
|
|
|
- Label new features requests as ``feature-request``
|
|
- The TSC discusses new ``feature-request`` items regularly and triages them.
|
|
Items are examined for similarity with existing features, how they fit with
|
|
the project goals and other timeline considerations. The priority is
|
|
determined as follows:
|
|
|
|
- High = Next milestone
|
|
- Medium = As soon as possible
|
|
- Low = Best effort
|
|
|
|
- After the initial discussion and triaging, the label is moved from
|
|
``feature-request`` to ``feature`` with the target milestone and an assignee.
|
|
|
|
All items marked as ``feature-request`` are non-binding and those without an
|
|
assignee are open for grabs, meaning that they can be picked up and implemented
|
|
by any project member or the community. You should contact an assigned owner if
|
|
you'd like to discuss or contribute to that feature's implementation
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _rfcs:
|
|
|
|
Proposals and RFCs
|
|
*******************
|
|
|
|
Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be
|
|
implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
|
|
|
|
Many changes however are "substantial" and need to go through a
|
|
design process and produce a consensus among the project stakeholders.
|
|
|
|
The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and
|
|
controlled path for new features to enter the project.
|
|
|
|
Contributors and project stakeholders should consider using this process if
|
|
they intend to make "substantial" changes to Zephyr or its documentation. Some
|
|
examples that would benefit from an RFC are:
|
|
|
|
- A new feature that creates new API surface area, and would require a feature
|
|
flag if introduced.
|
|
- The modification of an existing stable API
|
|
- The removal of features that already shipped as part of Zephyr.
|
|
- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they do not
|
|
include code changes to Zephyr itself.
|
|
|
|
The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on proposals coming
|
|
from contributors before it becomes a part of Zephyr. Quite often, even
|
|
proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider group
|
|
of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
|
|
|
|
The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed
|
|
feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into the
|
|
design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully
|
|
implemented.
|
|
|
|
Some changes do not require an RFC:
|
|
|
|
- Rephrasing, reorganizing or refactoring
|
|
- Addition or removal of warnings
|
|
- Addition of new boards, SoCs or drivers to existing subsystems
|
|
- ...
|
|
|
|
The process in itself consists in creating a GitHub issue with the :ref:`RFC
|
|
label <gh_labels>` that documents the proposal thoroughly. There is an `RFC
|
|
template`_ included in the main Zephyr GitHub repository that serves as a
|
|
guideline to write a new RFC.
|
|
|
|
As with Pull Requests, RFCs might require discussion in the context of one of
|
|
the `Zephyr meetings`_ in order to move it forward in cases where there is
|
|
either disagreement or not enough voiced opinions in order to proceed. Make sure
|
|
to either label it appropriately or include it in the corresponding GitHub
|
|
project in order for it to be examined during the next meeting.
|
|
|
|
Roadmap and Release Plans
|
|
*************************
|
|
|
|
Project roadmaps and release plans are both important tools for the project, but
|
|
they have very different purposes and should not be confused. A project roadmap
|
|
communicates the high-level overview of a project's strategy, while a release
|
|
plan is a tactical document designed to capture and track the features planned
|
|
for upcoming releases.
|
|
|
|
- The project roadmap communicates the why; a release plan details the what
|
|
- A release plan spans only a few months; a product roadmap might cover a year
|
|
or more
|
|
|
|
|
|
Project Roadmap
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
The project roadmap should serve as a high-level, visual summary of the
|
|
project's strategic objectives and expectations.
|
|
|
|
If built properly, the roadmap can be a valuable tool for several reasons. It
|
|
can help the project present its plan in a compelling way to existing and new
|
|
stakeholders, to help recruit new members and it can be a helpful resource the
|
|
team and community can refer to throughout the project's development, to ensure
|
|
they are still executing according to plan.
|
|
|
|
As such, the roadmap should contain only strategic-level details, major project
|
|
themes, epics, and goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Release Plans
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
The release plan comes into play when the project roadmap's high-level strategy
|
|
is translated into an actionable plan built on specific features, enhancements,
|
|
and fixes that need to go into a specific release or milestone.
|
|
|
|
The release plan communicates those features and enhancements slated for your
|
|
project' next release (or the next few releases). So it acts as more of a
|
|
project plan, breaking the big ideas down into smaller projects the community
|
|
and main stakeholders of the project can make progress on.
|
|
|
|
Items labeled as ``features`` are short or long term release items that shall
|
|
have an assignee and a milestone set.
|
|
|
|
.. _`RFC template`: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/rfc-proposal.md
|
|
.. _`Zephyr meetings`: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/wiki/Zephyr-Committee-and-Working-Group-Meetings
|