The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the framework.

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 Astro core team and the community.

An RFC goes through the following stages:

• Pending: when the RFC is submitted as a PR.
• Active: when an RFC PR is merged and undergoing implementation.
• Landed: when an RFC’s proposed changes are shipped in an actual release.
• Rejected: when an RFC PR is closed without being merged.

Pending RFC List

You need to follow this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to one of the projects listed below:

• Astro core
• Astro compiler

We are limiting the RFC process for these repos to test out the process in a more manageable fashion, and may expand it to cover more projects under the @withastro organization in the future. For now, if you wish to suggest changes to those other projects, please use their respective issue lists.

What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on community norms, but may include the following:

• A new feature that creates new API surface area
• Changing the semantics or behavior of an existing API
• The removal of features that are 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 Astro itself.

Some changes do not require an RFC:

• Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality criteria (speedup, better browser support)
• Fixing objectively incorrect behavior
• Rephrasing, reorganizing or refactoring
• Addition or removal of warnings
• Additions only likely to be noticed by other implementors-of-Astro, invisible to users-of-Astro.

If you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first.

It is great that you are considering suggesting new features or changes to Astro - we appreciate your willingness to contribute! However, as Astro becomes more widely used, we need to take stability more seriously, and thus have to carefully consider the impact of every change we make that may affect end users. On the other hand, we also feel that Astro has reached a stage where we want to start consciously preventing further complexity from new API surfaces.

These constraints and tradeoffs may not be immediately obvious to users who are proposing a change just to solve a specific problem they just ran into. The RFC process serves as a way to guide you through our thought process when making changes to Astro, so that we can be on the same page when discussing why or why not these changes should be made.

It’s often helpful to get feedback on your concept before diving into the level of API design detail required for an RFC. You may open an issue on this repo to start a high-level discussion, with the goal of eventually formulating an RFC pull request with the specific implementation design.

In short, to get a major feature added to Astro, one must first get 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 Astro.

1. Work on your proposal in a Markdown file based on the template (template.md) found in this repo.

   • 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.

2. Open a new thread in Discussions and make sure to set category to "RFC Discussions".

   • Build consensus and integrate feedback in the discussion thread. RFCs that have broad support are much more likely to make progress than those that don’t receive any comments.

3. If the proposal receives non-trivial interest from community members and generally positive feedback, you can prepare a Pull Request:

   • Fork this repo.
   • Create your proposal as proposals/my-feature.md (where "my-feature" is descriptive).
   • Submit a pull request. Make sure to link to the discussion thread.

4. Eventually, the core team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate for inclusion in Astro.

   • An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the core team and community. Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
   • An RFC may be rejected after public discussion has settled and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of the core team should then close the RFC’s associated pull request.
   • An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A core team member will merge the RFC’s associated pull request, at which point the RFC will become 'active', existing in the proposals directory.
   • Once the RFC is implemented, it will be updated with the appropriate Implementation PR.

Once an RFC becomes active then authors may implement it and submit the feature as a pull request to the Astro 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 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.

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.

An active RFC should have the link to the implementation PR listed if there is one. Feedback to the actual implementation should be conducted in the implementation PR instead of the original RFC PR.

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).

Members of the core team will attempt to review some set of open RFC pull requests on a regular basis. If a core team member believes an RFC PR is ready to be accepted into active status, they can approve the PR using GitHub’s review feature to signal their approval of the RFC.

Astro’s RFC process is forked from the Vue RFC process which itself owes inspiration to the React RFC process, Rust RFC process and Ember RFC process.