initial commit

cometkim · cometkim · commit c2db765fa95d · 2024-11-05T22:53:32.000+09:00
diff --git a/0000-template.md b/0000-template.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, `my_awesome_feature`)
+Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+ReScript Issue: (leave this empty)
+---
+
+# Summary
+
+Brief explanation of the feature.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?
+
+Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted, the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind.
+
+# Detailed design
+
+This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar with ReScript to understand, and for somebody familiar with the implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases, and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be defined here.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Why should we not do this? Please consider:
+
+- implementation cost, both in term of code size and complexity
+- whether the proposed feature can be implemented in user space
+- the impact on teaching people ReScript
+- integration of this feature with other existing and planned features
+- cost of migrating existing ReScript codebase (is it a breaking change?)
+
+There are tradeoffs to choosing any path. Attempt to identify them here.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+
+- Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
+- What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them?
+- What is the impact of not doing this?
+- If this is a language proposal, could this be done in a library instead?
+
+# Prior art
+
+Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A few examples of what this can include are:
+
+- For language, library, tools, and compiler proposals: Does this feature exist in other programming languages and what experience has their community had?
+- For community proposals: Is this done by some other community and what were their experiences with it?
+- For other teams: What lessons can we learn from what other communities have done here?
+- Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical background.
+
+This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other languages and provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture. If there is no prior art, that is fine - your ideas are interesting to us whether they are brand new or if it is an adaptation from other languages.
+
+Note that while precedent set by other languages is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC.
+
+# Adoption strategy
+
+If we implement this proposal, how will existing ReScript developers adopt it? Is this a breaking change? What is the migration plan? Should we coordinate with other projects or libraries?
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+Optional, but suggested for first drafts. What parts of the design are still TBD?
+
+# Future posibilities
+
+Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be and how it would affect the language and project as a whole in a holistic way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible interactions with the project and language in your proposal.
+
+This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the RFC you are writing but otherwise related.
+
+If you have tried and cannot think of any future possibilities, you may simply state that you cannot think of anything.
+
+Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section is not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be in the section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs. The section merely provides additional information.
diff --git a/LICENSE b/LICENSE
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2024 - Authors of ReScript
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# ReScript RFCs
+
+The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
+
+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 ReScript core team.
+
+## When to follow this process
+
+You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to ReScript or its documentation. Some examples that would benefit from an RFC are:
+
+- Any semantic or syntactic change to the language that is not a bugfix.
+- Removing language features, including those that are feature-gated.
+- The introduction of new toolchain that brings about a significant change in the ReScript experience. (e.g. GenType, Reanalyze)
+
+Some changes do not require an RFC:
+
+- Rephrasing, reorganizing, refactoring, or otherwise "changing shape does not change meaning".
+- Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality criteria (warning removal, speedup, better platform coverage, more parallelism, trap more errors, etc.)
+- Additions only likely to be noticed by other developers-of-rescript, invisible to users-of-rescript.
+
+## Before creating an RFC
+
+A hastily-proposed RFC can hurt its chances of acceptance. Low quality proposals, proposals for previously-rejected features, or those that don't fit into the near-term roadmap, may be quickly rejected, which can be demotivating for the unprepared contributor. Laying some groundwork ahead of the RFC can make the process smoother.
+
+Although there is no single way to prepare for submitting an RFC, it is generally a good idea to pursue feedback from other project developers beforehand, to ascertain that the RFC may be desirable; having a consistent impact on the project requires concerted effort toward consensus-building.
+
+The most common preparations for writing and submitting an RFC include talking the idea over on the official [forum](https://forum.rescript-lang.org/). You may file issues on this repo for discussion.
+
+As a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing project developers, and particularly members of the relevant core team is a good indication that the RFC is worth pursuing.
+
+## What the process is
+
+- Fork the RFC repo https://github.com/rescript-lang/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.
+- Now that your RFC has an open pull request, use the issue number of the PR to rename the file: update your `0000-` prefix to that number. Also update the "RFC PR" link at the top of the file.
+- 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 ReScript. Note that the 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 ReScript will enter a "final comment period" 7 calendar days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a comment and tag on the RFC's pull request.
+- An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community. Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
+- 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 ReScript 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).
+
+## Reviewing RFCs
+
+Currently, the ReScript team cannot commit to reviewing RFCs in a timely manner. When you submit an RFC, your primary goal should be to solicit community feedback and generate a rich discussion. The ReScript team will attempt to review some set of open RFC pull requests as often as possible.
+
+We try to make sure that any RFC that we accept is accepted at the monthly team meeting, and reported in core team notes. Every accepted feature should have a core team champion, who will represent the feature and its progress.
+
+## Inspiration
+
+ReScript's RFC process owes its inspiration to the RFC process adopted by [Rust](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs), [Yarn](https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs), [React](https://github.com/reactjs/rfcs), and the [Ember](https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs).
