Skip to content

Commit 8831cfa

Browse files
wycatswycats
committed
Initial sketch of the RFC process
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.
0 parents  commit 8831cfa

File tree

3 files changed

+190
-0
lines changed

3 files changed

+190
-0
lines changed

‎0000-template.md

Lines changed: 54 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
1+
- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
2+
- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
3+
- Yarn Issue: (leave this empty)
4+
5+
# Summary
6+
7+
One paragraph explanation of the feature.
8+
9+
# Motivation
10+
11+
Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected
12+
outcome?
13+
14+
Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted,
15+
the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words,
16+
enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too
17+
closely to the solution you have in mind.
18+
19+
# Detailed design
20+
21+
This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody
22+
familiar with Yarn to understand, and for somebody familiar with the
23+
implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases,
24+
and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be
25+
defined here.
26+
27+
# How We Teach This
28+
29+
What names and terminology work best for these concepts and why? How is this
30+
idea best presented? As a continuation of existing npm patterns, existing Yarn
31+
patterns, or as a wholly new one?
32+
33+
Would the acceptance of this proposal mean the Yarn documentation must be
34+
re-organized or altered? Does it change how Yarn is taught to new users
35+
at any level?
36+
37+
How should this feature be introduced and taught to existing Yarn users?
38+
39+
# Drawbacks
40+
41+
Why should we *not* do this? Please consider the impact on teaching people to
42+
use Yarn, on the integration of this feature with other existing and planned
43+
features, on the impact of churn on existing users.
44+
45+
There are tradeoffs to choosing any path, please attempt to identify them here.
46+
47+
# Alternatives
48+
49+
What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?
50+
51+
# Unresolved questions
52+
53+
Optional, but suggested for first drafts. What parts of the design are still
54+
TBD?

‎README.md

Lines changed: 136 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
1+
# Yarn RFCs
2+
3+
Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be
4+
implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
5+
6+
Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put
7+
through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Yarn
8+
core team.
9+
10+
The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a
11+
consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
12+
13+
[Active RFC List](https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs/pulls)
14+
15+
As a new project, Yarn is still **actively developing** this process,
16+
and it will still change as more features are implemented and the
17+
community settles on specific approaches to feature development.
18+
19+
## When to follow this process
20+
21+
You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial"
22+
changes to Yarn or its documentation. Some examples that would benefit
23+
from an RFC are:
24+
25+
- A new feature that creates new API surface area, and would
26+
require a feature flag if introduced.
27+
- The removal of features that already shipped as part of the release
28+
channel.
29+
- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they
30+
do not include code changes to Yarn itself.
31+
32+
The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on your proposal
33+
before it becomes a part of a released version of Yarn. Quite often, even
34+
proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider
35+
group of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
36+
37+
The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed
38+
feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into
39+
the design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully
40+
implemented.
41+
42+
Some changes do not require an RFC:
43+
44+
- Rephrasing, reorganizing or refactoring
45+
- Addition or removal of warnings
46+
- Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality
47+
criteria (speedup, better browser support)
48+
- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other implementors-of-Yarn,
49+
invisible to users-of-Yarn.
50+
51+
## Gathering feedback before submitting
52+
53+
It's often helpful to get feedback on your concept before diving into the
54+
level of API design detail required for an RFC. **You may open an
55+
issue on this repo to start a high-level discussion**, with the goal of
56+
eventually formulating an RFC pull request with the specific implementation
57+
design.
58+
59+
## What the process is
60+
61+
In short, to get a major feature added to Yarn, one usually first gets
62+
the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC
63+
is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion
64+
into Yarn.
65+
66+
* Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs
67+
* Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where
68+
'my-feature' is descriptive. don't assign an RFC number yet).
69+
* Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: **RFCs that do not
70+
present convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the
71+
impact of the design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or
72+
alternatives tend to be poorly-received**.
73+
* Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design
74+
feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared
75+
to revise it in response.
76+
* Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support
77+
are much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any
78+
comments.
79+
* Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate
80+
for inclusion in Yarn.
81+
* RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in Yarn will enter a "final comment
82+
period" lasting 7 days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a
83+
comment and tag on the RFC's pull request.
84+
* An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community.
85+
Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
86+
* An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled
87+
and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of
88+
the team should then close the RFC's associated pull request.
89+
* An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team
90+
member will merge the RFC's associated pull request, at which point the RFC will
91+
become 'active'.
92+
93+
## The RFC life-cycle
94+
95+
Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the
96+
feature as a pull request to the Yarn repo. Becoming 'active' is not a rubber
97+
stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately
98+
be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle
99+
and are amenable to merging it.
100+
101+
Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is
102+
'active' implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its
103+
implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it.
104+
105+
Modifications to active RFC's can be done in followup PR's. We strive
106+
to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of
107+
the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect
108+
every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at
109+
the time of the next major release; therefore we try to keep each RFC
110+
document somewhat in sync with the language feature as planned,
111+
tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the document.
112+
113+
## Implementing an RFC
114+
115+
The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the
116+
RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an
117+
implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted.
118+
119+
If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 'active'
120+
RFC, but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it,
121+
feel free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).
122+
123+
## Reviewing RFC's
124+
125+
Each week the team will attempt to review some set of open RFC
126+
pull requests.
127+
128+
We try to make sure that any RFC that we accept is accepted at the
129+
Friday team meeting, and reported in [core team notes]. Every
130+
accepted feature should have a core team champion, who will represent
131+
the feature and its progress.
132+
133+
**Yarn's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [Rust RFC process] and the [Ember RFC process]**
134+
135+
[Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
136+
[Ember RFC process]: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs

‎text/.keep

Whitespace-only changes.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)