A structured process for proposing and reviewing substantial changes to the Yarn package manager.
Yarn RFCs is the formal Request for Comments process for the Yarn package manager. It is a structured workflow for proposing, discussing, and approving substantial changes to Yarn, such as new features, API modifications, or removal of existing functionality. The process ensures that significant changes undergo design review and achieve consensus among the Yarn core team and community before implementation.
Yarn contributors, maintainers, and community members who want to propose or review major changes to the Yarn package manager. It is particularly relevant for developers submitting substantial feature proposals or those involved in Yarn's governance.
Developers choose Yarn RFCs because it provides a transparent and controlled framework for evolving a critical tool like Yarn, reducing the risk of breaking changes and ensuring alignment with project goals. Its structured approach, inspired by Rust and Ember RFC processes, fosters high-quality design discussions and community involvement.
RFCs for changes to Yarn
Open-Awesome is built by the community, for the community. Submit a project, suggest an awesome list, or help improve the catalog on GitHub.
Provides a detailed template and step-by-step process for RFCs, ensuring thorough consideration of motivation, impact, and alternatives, as outlined in the 'What the process is' section.
Requires broad support from the Yarn community and core team before acceptance, fostering inclusive and transparent decision-making for substantial changes.
Maintains an active list of RFC pull requests for public discussion, allowing contributors to monitor progress and provide feedback openly.
Includes a mandatory 7-day final comment period for RFCs candidate for inclusion, reducing the risk of overlooked issues before implementation.
The README admits the process is 'actively developing' and may change, creating uncertainty for contributors about long-term procedures.
RFCs must present convincing details and alternatives; poorly prepared proposals are 'poorly-received', which can discourage participation from less experienced contributors.
Active RFCs do not assure implementation or priority, as noted in 'The RFC life-cycle', potentially leading to abandoned efforts and wasted contributor time.