mirror of
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor.git
synced 2024-12-01 08:03:31 +01:00
103 lines
3.9 KiB
Plaintext
103 lines
3.9 KiB
Plaintext
|
Filename: 001-process.txt
|
||
|
Title: The Tor Proposal Process
|
||
|
Version: $Revision: 11537 $
|
||
|
Last-Modified: $Date: 2007-01-26T19:04:29.998860Z $
|
||
|
Author: Nick Mathewson
|
||
|
Created: 30-Jan-2007
|
||
|
Status: Meta
|
||
|
|
||
|
Overview:
|
||
|
|
||
|
This document describes how to change the Tor specifications, how Tor
|
||
|
proposals work, and the relationship between Tor proposals and the
|
||
|
specifications.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is an informational document.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Motivation:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Previously, our process for updating the Tor specifications was maximally
|
||
|
informal: we'd patch the specification (sometimes forking first, and
|
||
|
sometimes not), then discuss the patches, reach consensus, and implement
|
||
|
the changes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This had a few problems.
|
||
|
|
||
|
First, even at its most efficient, the old process would often have the
|
||
|
spec out of sync with the code. The worst cases were those where
|
||
|
implementation was deferred: the spec and could stay out of sync for
|
||
|
versions at a time.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Second, it was hard to participate in discussion, since you had to know
|
||
|
which portions of the spec were a proposal, and which were already
|
||
|
implemented.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Third, it littered the specifications with too many inline comments.
|
||
|
[This was a real problem -NM]
|
||
|
[Especially when it went to multiple levels! -NM]
|
||
|
[XXXX especially when they weren't signed and talked about that
|
||
|
thing that you can't remember after a year]
|
||
|
|
||
|
How to change the specs now:
|
||
|
|
||
|
First, somebody writes a proposal document. It should describe the change
|
||
|
that should be made in detail, and give some idea of how to implement it.
|
||
|
Once it's fleshed out enough, it becomes a proposal.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Like an RFC, every proposal gets a number. Unlike RFCs, proposals can
|
||
|
change over time and keep the same number. The history for each proposal
|
||
|
will be stored in the Tor Subversion repository.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Once a proposal is in the repository, we should discuss and improve it
|
||
|
until we've reached consensus that it's a good idea, and that it's
|
||
|
detailed enough to implement. When this happens, we implement the
|
||
|
proposal and incorporate it into the specifications. Thus, the specs
|
||
|
remain the canonical documentation for the Tor protocol: no proposal is
|
||
|
ever the canonical documentation for an implemented feature.
|
||
|
|
||
|
{It's still okay to make mall changes to the spec if the code can be
|
||
|
written more or less immediately, or cosmetic changes if no code change is
|
||
|
required. This document reflects the current developers' _intent_, not
|
||
|
a permanent promise to always use this process in the future: we reserve
|
||
|
the right to get really excited and run off and implement something in a
|
||
|
caffeine-and-m&m-fueled all-night hacking session.}
|
||
|
|
||
|
Proposal status:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Open: A proposal under discussion.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Accepted: The proposal is complete, and we intend to implement it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Finished: The proposal has been accepted and implemented.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Closed: The proposal has been accepted, implemented, and merged into the
|
||
|
main specification documents.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Rejected: We're not going to implement the feature as described here,
|
||
|
though we might do some other version. See comments in the document
|
||
|
for details.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Needs-Revision: The idea for the proposal is a good one, but the proposal
|
||
|
as it stands has serious problems that keep it from being accepted.
|
||
|
See comments in the document for details.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dead: The proposal hasn't been touched in a long time, and it doesn't look
|
||
|
like anybody is going to complete it soon.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Needs-Research: There are research problems that need to be solved before
|
||
|
it's clear whether the proposal is a good idea.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Meta: This is not a proposal, but a document about proposals.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Proposal numbering:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Numbers 000-099 are reserved for special and meta-proposals. 100 and up
|
||
|
are used for actual proposals. Numbers aren't recycled.
|
||
|
|
||
|
What should go in a proposal:
|
||
|
|
||
|
WRITE MORE.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Before a proposal is "ACCEPTED", it should have about as much detail as
|
||
|
the specs would for the proposed feature.
|