Difference between revisions of "MapGuide RFC 4 - KML Support"
m (New version of template) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ===Overview | + | This page contains an change request (RFC) for MapGuide Open Source. |
| + | More MapGuide RFCs can be found on the [[MapGuide RFCs]] page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Status= | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Submission Date: | ||
| + | *Last Modified Date: | ||
| + | *Author: | ||
| + | *RFC Status: (draft, proposed/pending vote, adopted or rejected) | ||
| + | *Implementation Status: (pending, under development, completed) | ||
| + | *Voting History: | ||
| + | *Assigned PSC guide(s): | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Overview= | ||
This section brefly describes the problem set, and the proposed solution in general terms. It should be deliberately short, a couple of sentences or so. | This section brefly describes the problem set, and the proposed solution in general terms. It should be deliberately short, a couple of sentences or so. | ||
| − | + | =Motivation= | |
This is the most important part of the RFC. It describes the problem domain in detail. Focusing on this will allow reviewers to fully understand why the proposed change is being made, and potentially suggest different/better ways of accomplishing the desired results. The more time we spend on understanding the problem, the better our solution will be. | This is the most important part of the RFC. It describes the problem domain in detail. Focusing on this will allow reviewers to fully understand why the proposed change is being made, and potentially suggest different/better ways of accomplishing the desired results. The more time we spend on understanding the problem, the better our solution will be. | ||
| − | + | =Funding/Resources= | |
This section will confirm that the proposed feature has enough support to proceed. This would typically mean that the entity making the changes would put forward the RFC, but a non-developer could potentially do so if they are sure they have the funding to cover the change. | This section will confirm that the proposed feature has enough support to proceed. This would typically mean that the entity making the changes would put forward the RFC, but a non-developer could potentially do so if they are sure they have the funding to cover the change. | ||
| − | + | =Proposed Changes= | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | This section | + | This is a more detailed description of the actual changes desired. The contents of this section will vary based on the target of the RFC, be it a technical change, website change, or process change. For example, for a technical change, items such as files, XML schema changes, and API chances would be identified. For a process change, the new process would be laid out in detail. For a website change, the files affected would be listed. |
| − | + | =Implications= | |
| − | This | + | This section allows discussion of the repercussions of the change, such as whether there will be any breakage in backwards compatibility, if documentation will need to be updated, etc. |
| − | + | =Test Plan= | |
| − | How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable | + | How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable. New unit tests should be detailed here??? |
Revision as of 16:31, 1 November 2006
This page contains an change request (RFC) for MapGuide Open Source. More MapGuide RFCs can be found on the MapGuide RFCs page.
Status
- Submission Date:
- Last Modified Date:
- Author:
- RFC Status: (draft, proposed/pending vote, adopted or rejected)
- Implementation Status: (pending, under development, completed)
- Voting History:
- Assigned PSC guide(s):
Overview
This section brefly describes the problem set, and the proposed solution in general terms. It should be deliberately short, a couple of sentences or so.
Motivation
This is the most important part of the RFC. It describes the problem domain in detail. Focusing on this will allow reviewers to fully understand why the proposed change is being made, and potentially suggest different/better ways of accomplishing the desired results. The more time we spend on understanding the problem, the better our solution will be.
Funding/Resources
This section will confirm that the proposed feature has enough support to proceed. This would typically mean that the entity making the changes would put forward the RFC, but a non-developer could potentially do so if they are sure they have the funding to cover the change.
Proposed Changes
This is a more detailed description of the actual changes desired. The contents of this section will vary based on the target of the RFC, be it a technical change, website change, or process change. For example, for a technical change, items such as files, XML schema changes, and API chances would be identified. For a process change, the new process would be laid out in detail. For a website change, the files affected would be listed.
Implications
This section allows discussion of the repercussions of the change, such as whether there will be any breakage in backwards compatibility, if documentation will need to be updated, etc.
Test Plan
How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable. New unit tests should be detailed here???