wehub-resource-sync
61 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
61 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
# These are optional elements. Feel free to remove any of them.
|
|
status: accepted
|
|
date: 2023-05-29
|
|
deciders: dluc, shawncal, hathind, alliscode
|
|
consulted:
|
|
informed:
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Use Markdown Any Decision Records to track Semantic Kernel Architecture Decisions
|
|
|
|
## Context and Problem Statement
|
|
|
|
We have multiple different language versions of the Semantic Kernel under active development i.e., C#, Python, Java and Typescript.
|
|
We need a way to keep the implementations aligned with regard to key architectural decisions e.g., we are reviewing a change to the format used to store
|
|
semantic function configuration (config.json) and when this change is agreed it must be reflected in all of the Semantic Kernel implementations.
|
|
|
|
MADR is a lean template to capture any decisions in a structured way. The template originated from capturing architectural decisions and developed to a template allowing to capture any decisions taken.
|
|
For more information [see](https://adr.github.io/)
|
|
|
|
<!-- This is an optional element. Feel free to remove. -->
|
|
|
|
## Decision Drivers
|
|
|
|
- Architecture changes and the associated decision making process should be transparent to the community.
|
|
- Decision records are stored in the repository and are easily discoverable for teams involved in the various language ports.
|
|
|
|
## Considered Options
|
|
|
|
- Use MADR format and store decision documents in the repository.
|
|
|
|
## Decision Outcome
|
|
|
|
Chosen option:
|
|
|
|
## Pros and Cons of the Options
|
|
|
|
### Use MADR format and store decision documents in the repository
|
|
|
|
How would we use ADR's to track technical decisions?
|
|
|
|
1. Copy docs/decisions/adr-template.md to docs/decisions/NNNN-title-with-dashes.md, where NNNN indicates the next number in sequence.
|
|
1. Check for existing PR's to make sure you use the correct sequence number.
|
|
2. There is also a short form template docs/decisions/adr-short-template.md
|
|
2. Edit NNNN-title-with-dashes.md.
|
|
1. Status must initially be `proposed`
|
|
2. List of `deciders` must include the aliases of the people who will sign off on the decision.
|
|
3. The relevant EM and `dluc` must be listed as deciders or informed of all decisions.
|
|
4. You should list the aliases of all partners who were consulted as part of the decision.
|
|
3. For each option list the good, neutral and bad aspects of each considered alternative.
|
|
1. Detailed investigations can be included in the `More Information` section inline or as links to external documents.
|
|
4. Share your PR with the deciders and other interested parties.
|
|
1. Deciders must be listed as required reviewers.
|
|
2. The status must be updated to `accepted` once a decision is agreed and the date must also be updated.
|
|
3. Approval of the decision is captured using PR approval.
|
|
5. Decisions can be changed later and superseded by a new ADR. In this case it is useful to record any negative outcomes in the original ADR.
|
|
|
|
- Good, because lightweight format which is easy to edit
|
|
- Good, because this uses the standard Git review process for commenting and approval
|
|
- Good, because decisions and review process are transparent to the community
|