rfcs

React 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 React 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 Contributor License Agreement (CLA) In order to accept your pull request, we need you to submit a CLA. You only need to do this once, so if you've done this for another Facebook open source project, you're good to go. If you are submitting a pull request for the first time, just let us know that you have completed the CLA and we can cross-check with your GitHub username. Complete your CLA here. When to follow this process You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to React 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 React itself. 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-React, invisible to users-of-React. What to expect It is hard to write an RFC that would get accepted. Nevertheless, this shouldn't discourage you from writing one. React has a very limited API surface area, and each feature needs to work seamlessly with all other features. Even among the team members who work on React full time every day, ramping up and gaining enough context to write a good RFC takes more than a year. In practice, React RFCs serve two purposes: React Team RFCs are submitted by React Team members after extensive (sometimes, multi-month or multi-year) design, discussion, and experimentation. In practice, they comprise the majority of the RFCs that got merged so far. The purpose of these RFCs is to preview the design for the community and to provide an opportunity for feedback. We read every comment on the RFCs we publish, respond to questions, and sometimes incorporate the feedback into the proposal. Since our time is limited, we don't tend to write an RFC for a React feature unless we're very confident that it fits the design. Although it might look like most React Team RFCs easily get accepted, in practice it's because 98% of ideas were left on the cutting room floor. The remaining 2% that we feel very confident and have team consensus on about are the ones that we announce as RFCs for community feedback. Community RFCs can be submitted by anyone. In practice, most community RFCs do not get merged. The most common reasons we reject an RFC is that it has significant design gaps or flaws, does not work cohesively with all the other features, or does not fall into our view of the scope of React. However, getting merged is not the only success criteria for an RFC. Even when the API design does not match the direction we'd like to take, we find RFC discussions very valuable for research and inspiration. We don't always review community RFCs in a timely manner, but whenever we start work on a related area, we check the RFCs in that area, and review the use cases and concerns that the community members have posted. When you send an RFC, your primary goal should not be necessarily to get it merged into React as is, but to generate a rich discussion with the community members. If your proposal later becomes accepted, that's great. But even if it doesn't, it won't be in vain. The resulting discussion often informs the next proposal in the same problem space, whether it comes from the community or from the React Team. Many library authors are reading the discussions, so RFCs often lead to community experimentation and userland solutions. We apply the same level of rigour both to React Team RFCs and Community RFCs. The primary difference between them is in the design phase: React Team RFCs tend to be submitted at the end of the design process whereas the Community RFCs tend to be submitted at the beginning as a way to kickstart it. What the process is In short, to get a major feature added to React, 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 React. Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/reactjs/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 React. Note that a team review may take a long time, and we suggest that you ask members of the community to review it first. RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in React will enter a "final comment period" lasting 3 calendar days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a comment and tag on the RFCs pull request. An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community. Significant modifications may trigger a ne