A repository for managing Requests For Comments (RFCs) for substantial changes to the ESLint project.
ESLint RFCs is the repository that manages the Request for Comments process for the ESLint project. It provides a formal framework for proposing and reviewing substantial changes to ESLint, such as new core features, command-line options, or breaking changes. The process ensures these changes undergo design review and achieve consensus before implementation.
ESLint contributors, maintainers, and community members who want to propose significant changes to the ESLint ecosystem. It's particularly relevant for developers submitting features that affect ESLint's core functionality or require breaking changes.
It offers a transparent, structured governance model that prevents haphazard changes and ensures community alignment. Developers choose this process because it provides a clear path for substantial contributions with built-in feedback loops and TSC oversight.
Repo for managing Requests For Comments (RFCs) for the ESLint project
Open-Awesome is built by the community, for the community. Submit a project, suggest an awesome list, or help improve the catalog on GitHub.
Guides contributors through detailed RFC submissions using templates in the `designs` directory, ensuring all necessary design information is captured upfront.
Includes initial (21-90 days) and final (7 days) commenting periods to gather input from the ESLint team and community, fostering consensus before implementation.
Requires approval from the ESLint Technical Steering Committee, ensuring changes align with project direction and have broad support, as stated in the approval process.
Maintains a repository of approved RFCs, documenting the motivation and decisions behind ESLint features for future reference, as highlighted in the RFC lifecycle.
The mandatory initial commenting period of at least 21 days can significantly delay implementation, making it unsuitable for urgent or time-sensitive changes.
Requires detailed design proposals using templates, which can be time-consuming and may deter contributors from proposing smaller or experimental improvements.
The definition of 'substantial' is subjective and evolving, potentially leading to inconsistent application of the process and confusion for contributors.