From b30618a01ca26bf60fd5f60a7a1c1c4da5d1497c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ivan Dlugos Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:54:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] rfc(feature): Source context via links --- README.md | 1 + text/0074-source-context-via-links.md | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+) create mode 100644 text/0074-source-context-via-links.md diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index bc586f37..3d1bd0e0 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -34,3 +34,4 @@ This repository contains RFCs and DACIs. Lost? - [0063-sdk-crash-monitoring](text/0063-sdk-crash-monitoring.md): SDK Crash Monitoring - [0070-document-sensitive-data-collected](text/0070-document-sensitive-data-collected.md): Document sensitive data collected - [0071-continue-trace-over-process-boundaries](text/0071-continue-trace-over-process-boundaries.md): Continue trace over process boundaries +- [0074-source-context-via-links](text/0074-source-context-via-links.md): Source context via links diff --git a/text/0074-source-context-via-links.md b/text/0074-source-context-via-links.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e8ee00d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/text/0074-source-context-via-links.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +- Start Date: 2023-02-15 +- RFC Type: feature +- RFC PR: https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/pull/74 +- RFC Status: draft + +# Summary + +One paragraph explanation of the feature or document purpose. + +# Motivation + +Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome? + +# Background + +The reason this decision or document is required. This section might not always exist. + +# Supporting Data + +[Metrics to help support your decision (if applicable).] + +# Options Considered + +If an RFC does not know yet what the options are, it can propose multiple options. The +preferred model is to propose one option and to provide alternatives. + +# Drawbacks + +Why should we not do this? What are the drawbacks of this RFC or a particular option if +multiple options are presented. + +# Unresolved questions + +- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through this RFC? +- What issues are out of scope for this RFC but are known?