RFC: document alternatives
Signed-off-by: Hidde Beydals <hello@hidde.co>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -221,11 +221,17 @@ apps-source sha256:e3b0c442 False True stored artifact for rev
|
||||
|
||||
### Alternatives
|
||||
|
||||
<!--
|
||||
List plausible alternatives to the proposal and explain why the proposal is superior.
|
||||
The two main alternatives around the `Revision` parts in this RFC are to either
|
||||
keep the current field value formats as is, or to invent another format. Given
|
||||
the [motivation](#motivation) for this RFC outlines the reasoning for not
|
||||
keeping the current `Revision` format, and the proposed is a commonly known
|
||||
format. Neither strike as a better alternative.
|
||||
|
||||
This is a good place to incorporate suggestions made during discussion of the RFC.
|
||||
-->
|
||||
For the changes related to `Checksum` and `Digest`, the alternative is to keep
|
||||
the current field name as is, and only change the field value format. However,
|
||||
given the naming of the field is more correct with the introduction of the
|
||||
algorithm alias, and now is the time to make last (breaking) changes to the
|
||||
API. This does not strike as a better alternative.
|
||||
|
||||
## Design Details
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user