From f6570accd6202952cafe9ab8f5e5e375258180a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Roessler Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:48:15 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/9] Copy rust's rfc template --- docs/rfcs/0000-template.md | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/rfcs/0000-template.md diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..81d2b368b6c4c --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +- 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: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000) +- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000) + +# Summary +[summary]: #summary + +One paragraph explanation of the feature. + +# Motivation +[motivation]: #motivation + +Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome? + +# Guide-level explanation +[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation + +Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the language and you were teaching it to another Rust programmer. That generally means: + +- Introducing new named concepts. +- Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples. +- Explaining how Rust programmers should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Rust. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible. +- If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance. +- If applicable, describe the differences between teaching this to existing Rust programmers and new Rust programmers. + +For implementation-oriented RFCs (e.g. for compiler internals), this section should focus on how compiler contributors should think about the change, and give examples of its concrete impact. For policy RFCs, this section should provide an example-driven introduction to the policy, and explain its impact in concrete terms. + +# Reference-level explanation +[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation + +This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that: + +- Its interaction with other features is clear. +- It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented. +- Corner cases are dissected by example. + +The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work. + +# Drawbacks +[drawbacks]: #drawbacks + +Why should we *not* do this? + +# Rationale and alternatives +[rationale-and-alternatives]: #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? + +# Prior art +[prior-art]: #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, cargo, tools, and compiler proposals: Does this feature exist in other programming languages and what experience have 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, 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. +Please also take into consideration that rust sometimes intentionally diverges from common language features. + +# Unresolved questions +[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions + +- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged? +- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization? +- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC? + +# Future possibilities +[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities + +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. +Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project +and of the relevant sub-team. + +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. From 946953e53336abc8b2f36864affa10d7cd20599b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:23:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/9] Apply suggestions from code review Add Alice's suggested modifications. Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile --- docs/rfcs/0000-template.md | 14 +++++--------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md index 81d2b368b6c4c..a2b2cb30ce4ca 100644 --- a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@ - 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: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000) -- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000) # Summary [summary]: #summary @@ -11,20 +9,18 @@ One paragraph explanation of the feature. # Motivation [motivation]: #motivation -Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome? +Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? # Guide-level explanation [guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation -Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the language and you were teaching it to another Rust programmer. That generally means: +Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the language and you were teaching it to another Bevy user. That generally means: - Introducing new named concepts. -- Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples. -- Explaining how Rust programmers should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Rust. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible. +- Explaining the feature, largely in terms of examples grounded in simple and common game constructs. +- Explaining how Bevy users should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Bevy. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible. - If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance. -- If applicable, describe the differences between teaching this to existing Rust programmers and new Rust programmers. -For implementation-oriented RFCs (e.g. for compiler internals), this section should focus on how compiler contributors should think about the change, and give examples of its concrete impact. For policy RFCs, this section should provide an example-driven introduction to the policy, and explain its impact in concrete terms. # Reference-level explanation [reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation @@ -70,7 +66,7 @@ Please also take into consideration that rust sometimes intentionally diverges f [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions - What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged? -- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization? +- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before the feature PR is merged? - What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC? # Future possibilities From c6a761c8a349af0368d8d870f801a29039fe2091 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:39:28 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/9] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Alexander Sepity Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile --- docs/rfcs/0000-template.md | 18 +++++++----------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md index a2b2cb30ce4ca..324b686a485aa 100644 --- a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@ Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? # Guide-level explanation [guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation -Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the language and you were teaching it to another Bevy user. That generally means: +Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the engine and you were teaching it to another Bevy user. That generally means: - Introducing new named concepts. -- Explaining the feature, largely in terms of examples grounded in simple and common game constructs. +- Explaining the feature, ideally through simple examples of solutions to concrete problems. - Explaining how Bevy users should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Bevy. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible. - If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance. @@ -51,16 +51,13 @@ Why should we *not* do this? 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, cargo, tools, and compiler proposals: Does this feature exist in other programming languages and what experience have 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? +- Does this feature exist in other libraries and what experiences have their community had? - 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, 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. -Please also take into consideration that rust sometimes intentionally diverges from common language features. +Note that while precedent set by other engines is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC. # Unresolved questions [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions @@ -73,11 +70,10 @@ Please also take into consideration that rust sometimes intentionally diverges f [future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities 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 +be and how it would affect Bevy 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. -Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project -and of the relevant sub-team. +interactions with the engine in your proposal. +Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project. This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the RFC you are writing but otherwise related. From 941af8a6e4ee5408e2f15264e9bbb240e980a9ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:30:19 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 4/9] Update 0000-template.md --- docs/rfcs/0000-template.md | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md index 324b686a485aa..3b093223ec094 100644 --- a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the engine and you were te - Explaining the feature, ideally through simple examples of solutions to concrete problems. - Explaining how Bevy users should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Bevy. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible. - If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance. +- If applicable, explain how this feature compares to similar existing features, and in what situations the user would use each one. # Reference-level explanation @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ Why should we *not* do this? - 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? +- Why must this be a feature of Bevy itself, rather than an ecosystem crate? # Prior art [prior-art]: #prior-art From 567f5992183071f3261886dd830af3c949f8e27c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:58:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 5/9] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile --- docs/rfcs/0000-template.md | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md index 3b093223ec094..802d239279c90 100644 --- a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@ - Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, `my_awesome_feature`) -- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD) # Summary [summary]: #summary @@ -80,8 +79,6 @@ Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project. 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 From 094fc60df3cf3fb4d71fe10da3c9c0d0dd057c4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:53:48 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 6/9] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile --- docs/rfcs/0000-template.md | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md index 802d239279c90..a3c8ea206912e 100644 --- a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -44,9 +44,9 @@ Why should we *not* do this? - 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? -- Why must this be a feature of Bevy itself, rather than an ecosystem crate? +- Why is this important to implement as a feature of Bevy itself, rather than an ecosystem crate? -# Prior art +# [Optional] Prior art [prior-art]: #prior-art Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. @@ -67,14 +67,13 @@ Note that while precedent set by other engines is some motivation, it does not o - What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before the feature PR is merged? - What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC? -# Future possibilities +# [Optional] Future possibilities [future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would -be and how it would affect Bevy as a whole in a holistic -way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible +be and how it would affect Bevy as a whole in a holistic way. +Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider other possible interactions with the engine in your proposal. -Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project. This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the RFC you are writing but otherwise related. From eaccd19eacd63af022aa06333279d06282d8657e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:55:49 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 7/9] Update CONTRIBUTING.md --- .github/CONTRIBUTING.md | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md b/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md index 9c9563680e3b0..d7761ec177aad 100644 --- a/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -2,3 +2,7 @@ Please see the [Contributing Code](https://bevyengine.org/learn/book/contributing/code/) section of [The Book](https://bevyengine.org/learn/book/introduction/). + +## RFCs + +See the [RFC Repo]() to learn the how and the why of Bevy RFCs. From 7b8cc7218d26d11d31464fa9cc8437e30943454f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:00:05 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 8/9] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile --- docs/rfcs/0000-template.md | 11 ++++------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md index a3c8ea206912e..c78cddf3c1b8f 100644 --- a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -21,7 +21,6 @@ Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the engine and you were te - If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance. - If applicable, explain how this feature compares to similar existing features, and in what situations the user would use each one. - # Reference-level explanation [reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation @@ -50,13 +49,12 @@ Why should we *not* do this? [prior-art]: #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: +This can include: - Does this feature exist in other libraries and what experiences have their community had? -- 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. +- Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? -This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other languages, 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. +This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other tools and provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture. Note that while precedent set by other engines is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC. @@ -78,8 +76,7 @@ interactions with the engine 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. - 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. +If a feature or change has no direct value on its own, expand your RFC to include the first valuable feature that would build on it. From de92b3cc0f5a55e295be62fe300f78c768a314b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aevyrie Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 12:10:18 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 9/9] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile --- docs/rfcs/0000-template.md | 29 ++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md index c78cddf3c1b8f..8e7bc765f8bd8 100644 --- a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -1,17 +1,14 @@ -- Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, `my_awesome_feature`) +# Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, `my_awesome_feature`) -# Summary -[summary]: #summary +## Summary One paragraph explanation of the feature. -# Motivation -[motivation]: #motivation +## Motivation Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? -# Guide-level explanation -[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation +## Guide-level explanation Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the engine and you were teaching it to another Bevy user. That generally means: @@ -21,8 +18,7 @@ Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the engine and you were te - If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance. - If applicable, explain how this feature compares to similar existing features, and in what situations the user would use each one. -# Reference-level explanation -[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation +## Reference-level explanation This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that: @@ -32,21 +28,18 @@ This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detai The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work. -# Drawbacks -[drawbacks]: #drawbacks +## Drawbacks Why should we *not* do this? -# Rationale and alternatives -[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives +## 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? - Why is this important to implement as a feature of Bevy itself, rather than an ecosystem crate? -# [Optional] Prior art -[prior-art]: #prior-art +## \[Optional\] Prior art Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. This can include: @@ -58,15 +51,13 @@ This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lesson Note that while precedent set by other engines is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC. -# Unresolved questions -[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions +## Unresolved questions - What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged? - What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before the feature PR is merged? - What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC? -# [Optional] Future possibilities -[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities +## \[Optional\] Future possibilities Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be and how it would affect Bevy as a whole in a holistic way.