https://github.com/webstudio-is/webstudio-rfcs
RFCs for changes to Webstudio
https://github.com/webstudio-is/webstudio-rfcs
Last synced: 4 months ago
JSON representation
RFCs for changes to Webstudio
- Host: GitHub
- URL: https://github.com/webstudio-is/webstudio-rfcs
- Owner: webstudio-is
- License: mit
- Created: 2022-12-07T09:45:44.000Z (over 3 years ago)
- Default Branch: main
- Last Pushed: 2024-04-13T11:35:10.000Z (about 2 years ago)
- Last Synced: 2025-06-06T05:49:55.245Z (about 1 year ago)
- Size: 48.8 KB
- Stars: 0
- Watchers: 8
- Forks: 0
- Open Issues: 1
-
Metadata Files:
- Readme: README.md
- License: LICENSE
- Code of conduct: CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
Awesome Lists containing this project
README
# Webstudio RFCs
The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a
consistent and controlled path for new features or changes with global impact to architecture or coding style to enter the project.
[Active RFC List](https://github.com/webstudio-is/rfcs/pulls)
## When to follow this process
You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial"
changes to Webstudio 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 Webstudio itself.
- Change to how Webstudio applications are architectured
- Change to the coding style of choice
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)
## What to expect
In practice, Webstudio RFCs serve two purposes:
* **Webstudio Team RFCs** are submitted by [Webstudio Team members](https://github.com/orgs/webstudio-is/people) after extensive (sometimes,
multi-month or multi-year) design, discussion, and experimentation.
* **Community RFCs** can be submitted by anyone. We apply the same level of rigour both to Webstudio Team RFCs and Community RFCs.
## What the process is
* Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/webstudio-is/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 Webstudio.
* An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community.
* 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 RFCs associated pull request.
* An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team
member will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC will
become 'active'.
## The RFC lifecycle
Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the
feature as a pull request to the 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 RFCs can be done in followup PRs. 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).