Skip to content

Conversation

@adpaco-aws
Copy link
Contributor

@adpaco-aws adpaco-aws commented Dec 3, 2024

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/

Rendered

Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <accorell@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <accorell@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <accorell@amazon.com>
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 It was superseded by RFC 82.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 <accorell@amazon.com>
@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.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Palacios <accorell@amazon.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@shaobo-he-aws shaobo-he-aws left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@adpaco-aws adpaco-aws merged commit 44de989 into cedar-policy:main Dec 4, 2024
1 check passed
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.

3 participants