MERC 1: Purpose and Guidelines¶
Table of Contents
A Mayan EDMS Request For Comment document or MERC document is a design document providing information to the Mayan EDMS community, or describing a new feature or process for Mayan EDMS. MERCs provide concise technical specifications of features, along with rationales.
There are three kinds of MERCs:
1. A Feature MERC describes a new feature or implementation for Mayan EDMS. Most MERCs will be Feature MERCs.
2. An Informational MERC describes a Mayan EDMS design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Mayan EDMS community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational MERCs do not necessarily represent a community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementers are free to ignore Informational MERCs or follow their advice.
3. A Process MERC describes a process surrounding Mayan EDMS, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process MERCs are like Feature MERCs but apply to areas other than the Mayan EDMS framework itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Mayan EDMS’s codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational MERCs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment used in Mayan EDMS development. Any meta-MERC is also considered a Process MERC. (So this document is a Process MERC).
The MERC process begins with a new idea for Mayan EDMS. It is highly recommended that a single MERC contain a single key proposal or new idea. Small enhancements or patches usually don’t need a MERC and follow Mayan EDMS’s normal contribution process.
MERCs should be focused on a single topic. If in doubt, split your MERC into several well-focused ones.
Once the idea’s been vetted, a draft MERC should be presented to the Mayan EDMS mailing list. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft MERC to make sure it’s properly formatted, of high quality, and to address initial concerns about the proposal.
The Core Developers will be responsible for accepting or rejecting the MERC proposal.
Following the discussion on Mayan EDMS mailing list, the proposal should be sent as a merge request to the Mayan EDMS repository. The draft must be written in MERC style; if it isn’t the merge request may be rejected until proper formatting rules are followed.
Finally, once a MERC has been accepted, the implementation must be completed. In many cases some (or all) implementation will actually happen during the MERC process: Feature MERCs will often have fairly complete implementations before being reviewed. When the implementation is complete and incorporated into the main source code repository, the status will be changed to “Final”.
MERCs need to follow a common format and outline; this section describes that format.
MERCs must be written in reStructuredText (the same format as Mayan EDMS’s documentation).
Each MERC should have the following parts:
A short descriptive title (e.g. “User document filters”), which is also reflected in the MERC’s filename (e.g.
Abstract – a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
Specification – The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow implementation – that is, developers other than the author should (given the right experience) be able to independently implement the feature, given only the MERC.
Motivation – The motivation is critical for MERCs that want to add substantial new features or materially refactor existing ones. It should clearly explain why the existing solutions are inadequate to address the problem that the MERC solves. MERC submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
Rationale – The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work.
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
Backwards Compatibility – All MERCs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The MERC must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. MERC submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
Reference Implementation – The reference implementation must be completed before any MERC is given status “Final”, but it need not be completed before the MERC is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of “rough consensus and running code” is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.
The final implementation must include tests and documentation, per Mayan EDMS development guide.
Each MERC must begin with some metadata given as an rST field list. The headers must contain the following fields:
- The MERC number. In an initial merge request, this can be left out or given
XXXX; the reviewer who merges the pull request will assign the MERC number.
- Original creation date of the MERC (in
- Date the MERC was last modified (in
- The MERC’s author(s).
- The person/people who have committed to implementing this MERC
- If this MERC depends on another MERC being implemented first, this should be a link to the required MERC.
- For Feature MERCs, the version of Mayan EDMS (e.g.
2.7.3) that this feature will be released in.
- These fields indicate that a MERC has been rendered obsolete. The newer MERC
must have a
Replacesheader containing the number of the MERC that it rendered obsolete; the older MERC has a
Superseded-Byheader pointing to the newer MERC.
- For MERCs that have been decided upon, this can be a link to the final rationale for acceptance/rejection. It’s also reasonable to simply update the MERC with a “Resolution” section, in which case this header can be left out.
How you report a bug, or submit a MERC update depends on several factors, such as the maturity of the MERC, the preferences of the MERC author, and the nature of your comments. For the early draft stages of the MERC, it’s probably best to send your comments and changes directly to the MERC author. For more mature, or finished MERCs you can submit corrections as repository issues or merge requests against the git repository.
When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first with the MERC author and/or a core developer.
MERC authors with git push privileges for the MERC repository can update the MERCs themselves.