From 313a0a0e0114d08d9a39d6e4656c590214fcf257 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Philipp Hofmann Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:45:40 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] rfc(decision): Mobile - Tracing Without Performance V2 --- README.md | 1 + ...-mobile-tracing-without-performance-v-2.md | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+) create mode 100644 text/0136-mobile-tracing-without-performance-v-2.md diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 70fb4df8..3dfbda9a 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -64,3 +64,4 @@ This repository contains RFCs and DACIs. Lost? - [0126-sdk-spans-aggregator](text/0126-sdk-spans-aggregator.md): SDK Spans Aggregator - [0129-video-replay-envelope](text/0129-video-replay-envelope.md): Video-based replay envelope format - [0131-pass-native-sdk-spans-to-hybrid](text/0131-pass-native-sdk-spans-to-hybrid.md): rfc(feature): Pass Native SDKs Spans to Hybrid +- [0136-mobile-tracing-without-performance-v-2](text/0136-mobile-tracing-without-performance-v-2.md): Mobile - Tracing Without Performance V2 diff --git a/text/0136-mobile-tracing-without-performance-v-2.md b/text/0136-mobile-tracing-without-performance-v-2.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3a50f015 --- /dev/null +++ b/text/0136-mobile-tracing-without-performance-v-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +- Start Date: 2024-06-04 +- RFC Type: decision +- RFC PR: https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/pull/136 +- 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?