Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Publish an RFC book #91

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

adpaco-aws
Copy link
Contributor

Publish an RFC book using mdBook. Hopefully, an RFC book will make it easier for Cedar contributors and others to access the most up-to-date version of accepted RFCs, summaries of RFC statuses, and also act as an alternative to GitHub's Markdown rendering.

The changes in this PR are mainly:

  • Adding/moving files around to get mdBook to work as smoothly as possible.
  • Adding a new workflow to deploy the generated content to GitHub Pages.

I've tested these changes in my own fork, and the results can be accessed here: https://adpaco-aws.github.io/rfcs/

NOTE: If the PR is approved, we'll need to change a "Pages" setting so that the deployment works as expected. Please don't merge without checking this first.

Rendered

Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@mwhicks1 mwhicks1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks great! But: Should RFC 68 be dropped? It was superseded by RFC 82. Should probably "un-accept" it in this repository along with changing the mdBook to not include it.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <[email protected]>
@adpaco-aws
Copy link
Contributor Author

Good point, I've changed the SUMMARY.md file to not include RFC 68.

I don't think we've actually defined what the process to "un-accept" an RFC is, but we have at least two options:

  • If we want to keep the latest version of RFC 68 for historical reasons, we could include it in the archive folder that Reform the RFC process #90 introduces.
  • Otherwise, we should just delete it. Note that RFC 82 refers to the PR (this) and not the RFC file, so this can already be done.

@mwhicks1
Copy link
Contributor

mwhicks1 commented Dec 3, 2024

we could include it in the archive folder

I like the idea of doing this. It was accepted, and has useful context/discussion compared to the 82.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants