-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 147
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Language adopted from Ember and Rust, eliminating any language that makes the process mandatory (during the bootstrapping phase), and adding a bit of rationale to parts of the process.
- Loading branch information
0 parents
commit 8831cfa
Showing
3 changed files
with
190 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ | ||
- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD) | ||
- RFC PR: (leave this empty) | ||
- Yarn Issue: (leave this empty) | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
|
||
One paragraph explanation of the feature. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
|
||
Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected | ||
outcome? | ||
|
||
Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted, | ||
the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, | ||
enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too | ||
closely to the solution you have in mind. | ||
|
||
# Detailed design | ||
|
||
This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody | ||
familiar with Yarn to understand, and for somebody familiar with the | ||
implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases, | ||
and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be | ||
defined here. | ||
|
||
# How We Teach This | ||
|
||
What names and terminology work best for these concepts and why? How is this | ||
idea best presented? As a continuation of existing npm patterns, existing Yarn | ||
patterns, or as a wholly new one? | ||
|
||
Would the acceptance of this proposal mean the Yarn documentation must be | ||
re-organized or altered? Does it change how Yarn is taught to new users | ||
at any level? | ||
|
||
How should this feature be introduced and taught to existing Yarn users? | ||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
|
||
Why should we *not* do this? Please consider the impact on teaching people to | ||
use Yarn, on the integration of this feature with other existing and planned | ||
features, on the impact of churn on existing users. | ||
|
||
There are tradeoffs to choosing any path, please attempt to identify them here. | ||
|
||
# Alternatives | ||
|
||
What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this? | ||
|
||
# Unresolved questions | ||
|
||
Optional, but suggested for first drafts. What parts of the design are still | ||
TBD? |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ | ||
# Yarn RFCs | ||
|
||
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 Yarn | ||
core team. | ||
|
||
The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a | ||
consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project. | ||
|
||
[Active RFC List](https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs/pulls) | ||
|
||
As a new project, Yarn is still **actively developing** this process, | ||
and it will still change as more features are implemented and the | ||
community settles on specific approaches to feature development. | ||
|
||
## When to follow this process | ||
|
||
You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial" | ||
changes to Yarn or its documentation. Some examples that would benefit | ||
from an RFC are: | ||
|
||
- A new feature that creates 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 not include code changes to Yarn 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 Yarn. 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. | ||
|
||
Some changes do not require an RFC: | ||
|
||
- Rephrasing, reorganizing or refactoring | ||
- Addition or removal of warnings | ||
- Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality | ||
criteria (speedup, better browser support) | ||
- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other implementors-of-Yarn, | ||
invisible to users-of-Yarn. | ||
|
||
## Gathering feedback before submitting | ||
|
||
It's often helpful to get feedback on your concept before diving into the | ||
level of API design detail required for an RFC. **You may open an | ||
issue on this repo to start a high-level discussion**, with the goal of | ||
eventually formulating an RFC pull request with the specific implementation | ||
design. | ||
|
||
## What the process is | ||
|
||
In short, to get a major feature added to Yarn, one usually first gets | ||
the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC | ||
is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion | ||
into Yarn. | ||
|
||
* Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs | ||
* Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where | ||
'my-feature' is descriptive. don't assign an RFC number yet). | ||
* Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: **RFCs that do not | ||
present convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the | ||
impact of the design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or | ||
alternatives tend to be poorly-received**. | ||
* Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design | ||
feedback from the larger community, and 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 Yarn. | ||
* RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in Yarn will enter a "final comment | ||
period" lasting 7 days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a | ||
comment and tag on the RFC's pull request. | ||
* An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community. | ||
Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period. | ||
* An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled | ||
and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of | ||
the team should then close the RFC's associated pull request. | ||
* An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team | ||
member will merge the RFC's associated pull request, at which point the RFC will | ||
become 'active'. | ||
|
||
## The RFC life-cycle | ||
|
||
Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the | ||
feature as a pull request to the Yarn repo. Becoming 'active' is not a rubber | ||
stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately | ||
be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle | ||
and are amenable to merging it. | ||
|
||
Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is | ||
'active' implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its | ||
implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it. | ||
|
||
Modifications to active RFC's can be done in followup PR's. We strive | ||
to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of | ||
the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect | ||
every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at | ||
the time of the next major release; therefore we try to keep each RFC | ||
document somewhat in sync with the language feature as planned, | ||
tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the document. | ||
|
||
## Implementing an RFC | ||
|
||
The author of an RFC is not 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). | ||
|
||
## Reviewing RFC's | ||
|
||
Each week the team will attempt to review some set of open RFC | ||
pull requests. | ||
|
||
We try to make sure that any RFC that we accept is accepted at the | ||
Friday team meeting, and reported in [core team notes]. Every | ||
accepted feature should have a core team champion, who will represent | ||
the feature and its progress. | ||
|
||
**Yarn's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [Rust RFC process] and the [Ember RFC process]** | ||
|
||
[Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs | ||
[Ember RFC process]: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs |
Empty file.