Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
However, some changes are more substantial, and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus in the community and among the maintainers.
The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and predictable path for new features and projects.
You need to follow this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to RubyGems, Bundler, or their documentation. What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on community norms, but may include the following.
- A new feature that creates new API, command, or option surface area.
- The removal of features that have already shipped in a minor release.
- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they do not include code changes.
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.)
- Addition or removal of warnings.
- Additions only likely to be noticed by other implementors, invisible to end users.
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'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, any major feature needs an RFC that has been merged into this RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Bundler and/or RubyGems.
- Fork the RFC repo (that's this one!)
- Copy
0000-template.mdtotext/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 should include convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the impact of the design, and be clear about drawbacks or alternatives.
- 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.
- RFCs rarely go through this process unchanged, especially as alternatives and drawbacks are shown. You can make edits, big and small, to the RFC to clarify or change the design, but make changes as new commits to the PR, and leave a comment on the PR explaining your changes. Specifically, do not squash or rebase commits after they are visible on the PR.
- RFCs that are candidates for inclusion will enter a "final comment period" lasting 7 days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a comment and tag on the RFC's pull request. At that point, the Bundler Twitter account will post a tweet about the RFC to attract the community's attention.
- An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the maintainers and community. Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
- An RFC may be rejected by the maintainers after public discussion has settled and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A maintainer should then close the RFC's associated pull request.
- An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A maintainer will merge the RFC's associated pull request, at which point the RFC will become 'active'.
Once an RFC becomes active then authors may implement it and submit the feature as a pull request to the Bundler repo. Being 'active' is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to the feature 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 does it imply anything about whether a Bundler developer has been assigned the task of implementing the feature. While it is not necessary that the author of the RFC also write the implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see an RFC through to completion: authors should not expect that other project developers will take on responsibility for implementing their accepted feature.
Modifications to active RFC's can be done in follow-up PR's. 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.
In general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very minor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes should be new RFCs, with a note added to the original 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).
The maintainers will review open RFC pull requests, giving feedback and eventually accepting or rejecting each one. Every accepted feature should have a maintainer champion, who will represent the feature and its progress.
The RubyGems + Bundler RFC process is inspired by the Rust, Ember.js, and Swift RFC processes.