-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this 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 It was superseded by RFC 82.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]>
Good point, I've changed the I don't think we've actually defined what the process to "un-accept" an RFC is, but we have at least two options:
|
I like the idea of doing this. It was accepted, and has useful context/discussion compared to the 82. |
Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
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:
mdBook
to work as smoothly as possible.I've tested these changes in my own fork, and the results can be accessed here: https://adpaco-aws.github.io/rfcs/
Rendered