Skip to content

Commit 59b512b

Browse files
acdliteacdlite
committed
Initial commit, based on Yarn RFCs repo
I've started by copying the Yarn RFCs repo, with some tweaks to the README and the RFC template. We'll continue iterating on these.
0 parents  commit 59b512b

File tree

2 files changed

+196
-0
lines changed

2 files changed

+196
-0
lines changed

‎0000-template.md

Lines changed: 68 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
1+
- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
2+
- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
3+
- React Issue: (leave this empty)
4+
5+
# Summary
6+
7+
Brief explanation of the feature.
8+
9+
# Basic example
10+
11+
If the proposal involves a new or changed API, include a basic code example.
12+
Omit this section if it's not applicable.
13+
14+
# Motivation
15+
16+
Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected
17+
outcome?
18+
19+
Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted,
20+
the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words,
21+
enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too
22+
closely to the solution you have in mind.
23+
24+
# Detailed design
25+
26+
This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody
27+
familiar with React to understand, and for somebody familiar with the
28+
implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases,
29+
and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be
30+
defined here.
31+
32+
# Drawbacks
33+
34+
Why should we *not* do this? Please consider:
35+
36+
- implementation cost, both in term of code size and complexity
37+
- whether the proposed feature can be implemented in user space
38+
- the impact on teaching people React
39+
- integration of this feature with other existing and planned features
40+
- cost of migrating existing React applications (is it a breaking change?)
41+
42+
There are tradeoffs to choosing any path. Attempt to identify them here.
43+
44+
# Alternatives
45+
46+
What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?
47+
48+
# Adoption strategy
49+
50+
If we implement this proposal, how will existing React developers adopt it? Is
51+
this a breaking change? Can we write a codemod? Should we coordinate with
52+
other projects or libraries?
53+
54+
# How we teach this
55+
56+
What names and terminology work best for these concepts and why? How is this
57+
idea best presented? As a continuation of existing React patterns?
58+
59+
Would the acceptance of this proposal mean the React documentation must be
60+
re-organized or altered? Does it change how React is taught to new developers
61+
at any level?
62+
63+
How should this feature be taught to existing React developers?
64+
65+
# Unresolved questions
66+
67+
Optional, but suggested for first drafts. What parts of the design are still
68+
TBD?

‎README.md

Lines changed: 128 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
1+
# React 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 React
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/reactjs/rfcs/pulls)
14+
15+
React is still **actively developing** this process, and it will still change as
16+
more features are implemented and the community settles on specific approaches
17+
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 React 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 React 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 React. 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-React,
49+
invisible to users-of-React.
50+
51+
## What the process is
52+
53+
In short, to get a major feature added to React, one usually first gets
54+
the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC
55+
is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion
56+
into React.
57+
58+
* Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/reactjs/rfcs
59+
* Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where
60+
'my-feature' is descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet).
61+
* Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: **RFCs that do not
62+
present convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the
63+
impact of the design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or
64+
alternatives tend to be poorly-received**.
65+
* Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design
66+
feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared
67+
to revise it in response.
68+
* Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support
69+
are much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any
70+
comments.
71+
* Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate
72+
for inclusion in React.
73+
* RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in React will enter a "final comment
74+
period" lasting 7 days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a
75+
comment and tag on the RFCs pull request.
76+
* An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community.
77+
Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
78+
* An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled
79+
and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of
80+
the team should then close the RFCs associated pull request.
81+
* An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team
82+
member will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC will
83+
become 'active'.
84+
85+
## The RFC life-cycle
86+
87+
Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the
88+
feature as a pull request to the React repo. Becoming 'active' is not a rubber
89+
stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately
90+
be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle
91+
and are amenable to merging it.
92+
93+
Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is
94+
'active' implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its
95+
implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it.
96+
97+
Modifications to active RFCs can be done in followup PRs. We strive
98+
to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of
99+
the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect
100+
every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at
101+
the time of the next major release; therefore we try to keep each RFC
102+
document somewhat in sync with the language feature as planned,
103+
tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the document.
104+
105+
## Implementing an RFC
106+
107+
The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the
108+
RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an
109+
implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted.
110+
111+
If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 'active'
112+
RFC, but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it,
113+
feel free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).
114+
115+
## Reviewing RFCs
116+
117+
Each week the team will attempt to review some set of open RFC
118+
pull requests.
119+
120+
We try to make sure that any RFC that we accept is accepted at the
121+
weekly team meeting. Every accepted feature should have a core team champion,
122+
who will represent the feature and its progress.
123+
124+
**React's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [Yarn RFC process], [Rust RFC process], and [Ember RFC process]**
125+
126+
[Yarn RFC process]: https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs
127+
[Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
128+
[Ember RFC process]: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)