RFCs (request for comments) for changes to Unearth.
The RFC process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
The Gatsby team said it best and we at Unearth believe the same:
Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Gatsby core team.
You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to Unearth or its documentation. Some examples that would benefit from an RFC are:
- A new feature that creates a new API surface area, and would require a feature flag if introduced.
- The removal of features that already shipped as part of the release channel.
- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they do no include code changes to Unearth itself.
The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on your proposal before it becomes a part of a released version of Unearth. Quite often, even proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider group of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into the design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully implemented.
The Unearth RFC process is a bit simpler than Unearth's in which we utilize GitHub Issues rather than PRs to encourage discussions. To get started:
- Create a new issue in this repo using the RFC Template
- Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present convincing motivation, demonstrate an understanding of the impact of the design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to be poorly-received.
- Submit the issue. As an issue, the RFC will receive design feedback from the larger community (Cedric for now), and you as the author should be prepared to revise it in response.
- Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments.
- Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate for inclusion in Unearth.
The author of an RFC is by no means obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted.
If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 'active' RFC, but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).
Unearth's RFC process owes its inspiration to the Gatsby RFC process.