Hat tip to the Ember RFC process and Rust RFC process.
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 Refract core team.
The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the framework.
- 0005 Embedded Refract
- 0011 Remove Namespacing in Base Specification
- 0012 Reserve Element
- 0013 Element Pointer
- 0014 Meta/Attributes Value Type
- 0015 Refract Full JSON Serialisation
- 0001 MSON Rename
- 0002 Clarity on API Description Format
- 0003 Rename
classmeta property - 0004 Clarity on API Description Namespace
- 0006 File Source Map
- 0007 Namespace Media Types
- 0008 Add Hyperlinks
- 0009 Parse Result Link Relations
- 0010 HREF Variables for HTTP Requests
You need to follow this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to Refract, Refract libraries, or related documentation. What constitutes a "substantial" change may vary depending on how Refract progresses.
If you submit a pull request without going through the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first.
In short, to propose a major change or to simply discuss design ideas and proposals, here are the steps to do so:
- Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/refractproject/rfcs
- Copy
0000-template.mdtotext/0000-my-feature.md(where 'my-feature' is descriptive. don't assign an RFC number yet). - Fill in the RFC with as many details as possible.
- Submit a pull request. The pull request is where the feedback will be given about the RFC.
- Build consensus and integrate feedback.
- Eventually, someone on the Refract core team will either accept the RFC by merging the pull request, at which point the RFC is 'active', or reject it by closing the pull request.
Once an RFC becomes active then authors may implement it and submit the change as a pull request to the relevant repository. An '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 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.
An RFC that makes it through the entire process to implementation is considered 'complete' and is moved to the 'complete' folder; an RFC that fails after becoming active is 'inactive' and moves to the 'inactive' folder.
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).
Each week the Refract core team will attempt to review some set of open RFC pull requests.