Clarify the scope of architectural decision records
This commit is contained in:
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
**Base Policy Version:** 1.11
|
||||
|
||||
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-06
|
||||
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-10
|
||||
|
||||
**Upstream Source:** [documentation.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/documentation.md)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -147,6 +147,15 @@ mechanisms only.
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture Decision Records
|
||||
|
||||
ADRs record durable architectural decisions: responsibility boundaries,
|
||||
ownership, significant constraints, and the reasons for choosing them. A settled
|
||||
implementation or presentation choice does not automatically belong in an ADR.
|
||||
Ask whether changing the detail would alter the architecture or represent
|
||||
reasonable evolution within it. Details that can evolve within the chosen
|
||||
architecture belong in API or CLI contracts, implementation documentation, or
|
||||
roadmaps. Describe upstream behavior as context without turning it into an
|
||||
independent project guarantee.
|
||||
|
||||
Use sequentially numbered ADR filenames such as
|
||||
`0001-record-architecture-decisions.md`. Follow the lightweight Nygard format:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user