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. diff --git a/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..8e7bc765f8bd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/rfcs/0000-template.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +# Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, `my_awesome_feature`) + +## Summary + +One paragraph explanation of the feature. + +## Motivation + +Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? + +## 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: + +- Introducing new named concepts. +- 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 + +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 + +Why should we *not* do this? + +## 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 + +Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. +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? + +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. + +## 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 + +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 other possible +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. +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.