(replies inline)
Related to this work is this pull request which implements extensions to
VirtualFile, which I would consider very key to this work:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/3302
With that pull request there have been some questions raised about how the JEP
Workflow interacts with the implementation workflow, and merging of code into
plugin and core repositories. I wanted to share the expectations I had in mind
when bringing over parts of PEP into JEP-1.
The workflow for a Standards JEP is generally going to be Draft->Accepted[0]->Final[1]
JEP-1 is somewhat intentionally vague on how these map to merges of pull
requests and APIs. My original thoughts around this were that this would be a
good thing and allow us the most flexibility in writing code alongside
discussing design and APIs, depending on the repository and design. I recognize
how this ambiguity also leaves room for confusion.
Working backwards, Final is the most clear and obvious in my opinion. A JEP
marked as Final means designs and APIs are merged, finalized, and considered
"supported" for whatever our hand-wavey-API-support-policy is (i.e. public
APIs) in whatever project they're being merged.
The requirements for implementation around Accepted[0] much more loosely
defined as:
"The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid, must not complicate
Jenkins unduly, and must be the same license as the component the proposal is
meant to added to"
In the case of Jenkins Essentials, we're merging code regardless of Accepted,
or even Draft JEP status, because obviously, that's most expedient given the
state of that project.
In the case of Jenkins plugins and core which are already being used, I
understand that is not the case. However, I think it would be a failure for JEP
if we are reluctant to merge code and make _use_ of it before the "Accepted" or
"Final" states are reached.
To a certain extent I believe that no API or design can be safely considered
Final without real world experimental or beta usage. Hiding something behind a
feature flag, or a @Beta annotation, for core or plugins is (IMHO) a really
good thing to strive for even in the Draft stage to get _real_ usage of designs
in the hands of testers and users. All the while, still communicating our
intention that these are *beta* (not in the Google sense).
The quote "No plan survives contact with the enemy", and my favorite Mike Tyson
derivative "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" come to
mind :)
With regards to the pull request for Jenkins core above, my recommendation for
the folks working on core is to merge and ship designed, documented, and
clearly marked Beta APIs which do not unduly complicate Jenkins, and of course
can be safely released and exercised in weekly and LTS releases. I think
plugins should be encouraged to follow similar guidelines at their
maintainers' discretion.
Optimizing for safely trying new things in released versions of code is IMHO a
very good thing.
Cheers
[0]
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/1#accepted
[1]
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/1#finalizing-a-jep