# ADR 0001: Record Architecture Decisions

## Status

Accepted (Implemented)

## Context

We need a way to document important architectural and design decisions made during the development of KubeOpenCode. As the project evolves, it's crucial to:

- Understand why certain decisions were made
- Provide context for future team members
- Track the evolution of architectural choices
- Avoid revisiting already-decided issues
- Create a knowledge base of design rationale

Without a standardized approach, design decisions may be:
- Lost in commit messages or pull request discussions
- Inconsistently documented across different formats
- Difficult to find when needed
- Missing important context about trade-offs considered

## Decision

We will use **Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)** to document significant architectural and design decisions.

### ADR Structure

Each ADR will include:
1. **Title**: Descriptive noun phrase (e.g., "Use PostgreSQL for Persistent Storage")
2. **Status**: Proposed, Accepted, Deprecated, or Superseded
3. **Context**: The issue or problem being addressed
4. **Decision**: What we decided to do and why
5. **Consequences**: Both positive and negative outcomes of the decision

### Organization

- ADRs will be stored in `docs/adr/`
- Each ADR is a separate Markdown file
- Files are numbered sequentially: `0001-title.md`, `0002-title.md`, etc.
- An index file (`README.md`) will list all ADRs

### Scope

We will create ADRs for decisions that:
- Impact the system architecture significantly
- Affect multiple components or teams
- Involve significant trade-offs
- May be questioned or revisited later
- Require explanation of context and reasoning

Examples:
- Technology choices (databases, frameworks, languages)
- API design patterns
- Deployment strategies
- Security approaches
- Data models

We will NOT create ADRs for:
- Minor implementation details
- Coding style preferences (use linting config instead)
- Obvious or trivial choices

### Process

1. When facing a significant decision, create a new ADR with status "Proposed"
2. Discuss with the team (via PR comments or meetings)
3. Update the ADR based on feedback
4. Once consensus is reached, mark as "Accepted"
5. If a decision is reversed, mark the old ADR as "Superseded" and create a new one

## Consequences

### Positive

- **Knowledge Preservation**: Design rationale is captured and searchable
- **Onboarding**: New team members can understand why things are the way they are
- **Consistency**: Standardized format makes it easy to find and read decisions
- **Accountability**: Clear record of who decided what and when
- **避免重复讨论**: Team can refer to ADRs instead of rehashing old debates

### Negative

- **Overhead**: Writing ADRs takes time
- **Maintenance**: Need to keep the index updated
- **Discipline Required**: Team must remember to create ADRs for significant decisions

### Mitigation

- Keep ADRs concise (aim for 1-2 pages)
- Use a template to speed up writing
- Create ADRs as part of the design process, not after the fact
- Review ADR list during architecture reviews

## References

- [ADR GitHub Organization](https://adr.github.io/)
- [Documenting Architecture Decisions by Michael Nygard](http://thinkrelevance.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions)
- [ADR Tools](https://github.com/npryce/adr-tools)
