Move patterns to new folders

[spier]

This is starting the work on #185.

I will keep a running checklist here until I am done.

• Moved Donuts from README section Pattern Donuts (needing a solution) to patterns/1-initial
• Notify PR authors for README section Pattern Donuts
• Moved patterns from README section Pattern Ideas (not yet proven; brainstormed) to patterns/1-initial
• Notify PR authors for README section Pattern Ideas
• Moved patterns from README section Pattern Drafts (proven, not yet fully reviewed) to patterns/2-structured
• Notify PR authors for README section Pattern Drafts
• Moved patterns from README section Reviewed Pattern Ideas (not yet proven but reviewed) to patterns/1-initial (no PRs in this section)
• Moved patterns from README section Reviewed Patterns (proven and reviewed) to patterns/2-structured (no PRs in this section)
• Group patterns in README, according to the 3 new maturity levels

Notes

• not sure how to move pattern Provide standard base documentation through a README, as it has its own folder structure => I decided to move the whole folder structure below patterns/2-structured
• The pattern Issue tracker use cases was not linked from the main README. I added it to the section Pattern Ideas (not yet proven; brainstormed)

[spier]

I am not sure what to do with these two categories from the README

• Reviewed Pattern Ideas (not yet proven but reviewed)
• Pattern Ideas (not yet proven; brainstormed)

Shared properties of most of these:

• They are not Donuts any more, as they have a proposed solution already. Speaks more for Structured, than for Initial.
• They follow the structure of the Patterns template (at least for the most parts). Speaks for Structured.
• The solution they provide has not been proven yet, which violates the "Is validated by at least one known instance" requirement of Structured.

[spier]

I think that this logic would work to move the patterns to the new maturity model (and folder structure):

Reviewed Patterns (proven and reviewed) | 11 patterns => 2-structured

• next step: find at least 3 known instances to move to 3-validated

Reviewed Pattern Ideas (not yet proven but reviewed) | 2 patterns => 1-initial

• these patterns likely already match the Pattern Template structure (as they are already reviewed)
• however they are not proven, hence have to go to 1-initial
• next step: find 1 known instance to move to 2-structured

Pattern Drafts (proven, not yet fully reviewed) | 11 patterns => 2-structured

• I hope that given that these patterns are already proven, the will already follow the Pattern Template structure somewhat, even if maybe not fully
• next step: quickly check that these patterns match the Pattern Template structure

Pattern Ideas (not yet proven; brainstormed) | 7 patterns => 1-initial

• next step: validate the pattern structure + find 1 known instance to move to 2-structured

Pattern Donuts (needing a solution) | 7 patterns/donuts => 1-initial

• next step: somebody that has also had this problem describes a solution to this
• next step: validate the pattern structure + find 1 known instance to move to 2-structured

[spier]

While this PR still has some outstanding tasks (see checklist above), it is already ready for a first review.

@maxcapraro The description in #188 (comment) outlines the implementation path that I chose. If you could review that and confirm that it matches the idea that you had with the maturity levels, that would be awesome!

[fwan2000]

I like the checklist that lays out the plan. Mapping previous 5 level of maturity to 3 would simplify the experience on the user side. However the current changes show all patterns got downgraded due to lack of known instances. Wonder whether that's a WIP in this PR or intended to be merged to main.

What're your thoughts on finding instances for structured & proven patterns? Here's an idea for your consideration. How about showing the mindmap of patterns to the general slack channel and soliciting input there? Maybe they can follow the link in mindmap to the pattern md and open a PR to add their instance, or link to a talk that mentioned the pattern?

[spier]

Thanks for the feedback!

I like the checklist that lays out the plan. Mapping previous 5 level of maturity to 3 would simplify the experience on the user side. However the current changes show all patterns got downgraded due to lack of known instances. Wonder whether that's a WIP in this PR or intended to be merged to main.

You are right, all patterns appear to get downgraded as part of this migration.
However the plan really is that the level 3-validated allows us to publish an ebook of mature patterns that we can be proud of. So the scrutiny we are applying here hopes to achieve that.

What're your thoughts on finding instances for structured & proven patterns? Here's an idea for your consideration. How about showing the mindmap of patterns to the general slack channel and soliciting input there? Maybe they can follow the link in mindmap to the pattern md and open a PR to add their instance, or link to a talk that mentioned the pattern?

I have not really thought about that part that much I must admit. Been going step by step here 👍
Would you mind adding your idea to the issue that is tracking that work? => #186

Also if you want to give that approach a shot already, please do!

I will try to get this PR here merged in the next week, so that we have the foundation for the new maturity levels in master.

[fwan2000]

I have not really thought about that part that much I must admit. Been going step by step here 👍
Would you mind adding your idea to the issue that is tracking that work? => #186

Also if you want to give that approach a shot already, please do!

Just updated issue with the idea. I will try to join the office hour next Thursday to discuss the plan more with you guys.

For the ebook, maybe we can lay out a mindmap that lists all the major things for IS to think through, then ensure we can have all those major things covered with patterns? The upcoming summit would be a good time to solicit feedback & new patterns.

[maxcapraro]

I think those changes are excellent (particularly the sorting into the maturity levels).

One thing that I feel is important is that we drop the remains of the old process (terms like proven, categories that were used prior to the new approach). I proposed some inline changes for that.

In particular, I'd not distinguish whether something was review or not - because this is just a meta status to me. We can of course point readers to stuff that's not yet reviewed. But technically if a pattern hasn't been reviewed, it is not existing. In the same way, I think we should avoid the term proven. Entities that hold validity for a certain context only, cannot be proven :)

Except for this one thing that we all should discuss, I find the changes very good, though, @spier! And clearly a lot of good work went into this 👍

[spier]

Thanks for the feedback @maxcapraro .

I think those changes are excellent (particularly the sorting into the maturity levels).

One thing that I feel is important is that we drop the remains of the old process (terms like proven, categories that were used prior to the new approach). I proposed some inline changes for that.

In particular, I'd not distinguish whether something was review or not - because this is just a meta status to me. We can of course point readers to stuff that's not yet reviewed. But technically if a pattern hasn't been reviewed, it is not existing. In the same way, I think we should avoid the term proven. Entities that hold validity for a certain context only, cannot be proven :)

Except for this one thing that we all should discuss, I find the changes very good, though, @spier! And clearly a lot of good work went into this 👍

I understand your line of thinking. Yes, eventually we should get rid of the remains of the old process completely, I 100% agree.

My thought was to keep these sub-groupings below the maturity levels only for the time being, until we have completed the clean-up. It might be handy to still know these old groups and pattern states, so that we know what the next follow-up action for the clean-up should be.

What do you think?

I would like to find a solution PR quickly, as it blocks the further clean-up work, and new PRs that are opened now would also run into merge conflicts with this.

[maxcapraro]

It might be handy to still know these old groups and pattern states, so that we know what the next follow-up action for the clean-up should be.

I think you might be right! Keeping that information for now might make it easier for us.

[spier]

Excellent. Accordingly I have resolved the remaining open suggestions without making any changes.

@lenucksi if you could take a look and rebase on master to fix the conflict with start-as-experiment.md that would be great.

Once that is done then i can do the "Notify PR authors" of the new maturity levels for the patterns that they are working on.

[spier]

@lenucksi I won't get to the remaining non-coding work in the checklist at the very top until early September.

However if this PR looks good to you feel free to rebase and merge, as it will reduce the merge conflicts for new PRs.

I can then do the remaining communication work (with the authors of open PRs) in early September.

[lenucksi]

Thanks for doing these changes @spier, as well as the review and discussion @maxcapraro and @fwan2000, also the good idea around collecting more confirmed instances @fwan2000.

I'm happy to merge this, however I can not do any rebasing work against your repo @spier since I miss the rights to do so.
I could either pull in your branch into the main repo and merge using a new PR, get rights on your branch or we wait until you've got time to do the rebase yourself.

Happy to reach out to PR authors as well. We should do as much of this on the public channels anyway.

[spier]

Ah, right. I read the warning from GitHub the wrong way then. It said:

This branch has conflicts that must be resolved
Only those with write access to this repository can merge pull requests.

Hence I figured that one of the trusted committers to this repo has to do it.

But if I can solve this on my own fork, I am more than happy to. Will try that now.

[spier]

@lenucksi this should be good to go now.

[spier]

The block Pattern Ideas (not yet proven; brainstormed) did not contain any PRs, hence I checked that todo in the checklist as a noop.

[spier]

I have notified all authors of open PRs in the group Pattern Drafts (proven, not yet fully reviewed) that the maturity levels have changed, and what they can do to get their PR merged.

See for example:

#74 (comment)