| = 1. [JAMES-2909] Record architecture decisions |
| |
| Date: 2019-10-02 |
| |
| == Status |
| |
| Proposed |
| |
| == Context |
| |
| In order to be more community-oriented, we should adopt a process to have a structured way to have open architectural decisions. |
| |
| Using an Architectural Decision Records-based process as a support of discussion on the developers mailing-lists. |
| |
| == Decision |
| |
| We will use Architecture Decision Records, as https://web.archive.org/web/20190824074401/http://thinkrelevance.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions[described by Michael Nygard]. |
| |
| Each ADR will be discussed on the Apache James' developers mailing-list before being accepted. |
| |
| Following https://community.apache.org/committers/decisionMaking.html[Apache Decision Making process], we provide the following possible status, with their associated meaning: |
| |
| * `Proposed`: The decision is being discussed on the mailing list. |
| * `Accepted (lazy consensus)` : the architecture decision was proposed on the mailing list, and a consensus emerged from people involved in the discussion on the mailing list. |
| * `Accepted (voted)` : the architecture undergo a voting process. |
| * `Rejected` : Consensus built up against that proposal. |
| |
| == Consequences |
| |
| See Michael Nygard's article, linked above. |
| For a lightweight ADR toolset, see Nat Pryce's https://github.com/npryce/adr-tools[adr-tools]. |
| |
| We should provide in a mutable `References` section links to related JIRA meta-ticket (not necessarily to all related sub-tickets) as well as a link to the mail archive discussion thread. |
| |
| JIRA tickets implementing that architecture decision should also link the related Architecture Decision Record. |
| |
| == References |
| |
| * https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-2909[JAMES-2909] |
