├── .gitignore ├── 0000-template.md ├── LICENSE ├── README.md ├── book.toml ├── resources └── project-group-workflow.svg └── rfc └── 0001-rfc-process.md /.gitignore: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | *~ 2 | book/ 3 | src/ 4 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /0000-template.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | - Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, `my_awesome_feature`) 2 | - Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD) 3 | - RFC PR: [supabase/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/supabase/rfcs/pull/0000) 4 | - Supabase Issue: [supabase/supabase#0000](https://github.com/supabase/supabase/issues/0000) 5 | 6 | # Summary 7 | [summary]: #summary 8 | 9 | One paragraph explanation of the feature. 10 | 11 | # Motivation 12 | [motivation]: #motivation 13 | 14 | Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome? 15 | 16 | # Guide-level explanation 17 | [guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation 18 | 19 | Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the platform and you were teaching it to another Supabase developers. That generally means: 20 | 21 | - Introducing new named concepts. 22 | - Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples. 23 | - Explaining how Supabase developers should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Supabase. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible. 24 | 25 | 26 | # Reference-level explanation 27 | [reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation 28 | 29 | This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that: 30 | 31 | - Its interaction with other features is clear. 32 | - It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented. 33 | - Corner cases are dissected by example. 34 | 35 | The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work. 36 | 37 | # Drawbacks 38 | [drawbacks]: #drawbacks 39 | 40 | Why should we *not* do this? 41 | 42 | # Rationale and alternatives 43 | [rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives 44 | 45 | - Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs? 46 | - What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them? 47 | - What is the impact of not doing this? 48 | 49 | # Prior art 50 | [prior-art]: #prior-art 51 | 52 | Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. 53 | A few examples of what this can include are: 54 | 55 | - Does this feature exist in other products and what experience have their community had? 56 | - What lessons can we learn from what other communities have done here? 57 | - 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. 58 | 59 | This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other platforms, provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture. 60 | 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 platforms. 61 | 62 | # Unresolved questions 63 | [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions 64 | 65 | - What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged? 66 | - What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization? 67 | - 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? 68 | 69 | # Future possibilities 70 | [future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities 71 | 72 | Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would 73 | be and how it would affect the language and project as a whole in a holistic 74 | way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible 75 | interactions with the project and language in your proposal. 76 | Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project 77 | and of the relevant sub-team. 78 | 79 | This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the 80 | RFC you are writing but otherwise related. 81 | 82 | If you have tried and cannot think of any future possibilities, 83 | you may simply state that you cannot think of anything. 84 | 85 | Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section 86 | is not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be 87 | in the section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs. 88 | The section merely provides additional information. 89 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /LICENSE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any 2 | person obtaining a copy of this software and associated 3 | documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the 4 | Software without restriction, including without 5 | limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, 6 | publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of 7 | the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software 8 | is furnished to do so, subject to the following 9 | conditions: 10 | 11 | The above copyright notice and this permission notice 12 | shall be included in all copies or substantial portions 13 | of the Software. 14 | 15 | THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF 16 | ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED 17 | TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A 18 | PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT 19 | SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY 20 | CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION 21 | OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR 22 | IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER 23 | DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. 24 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /README.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # Supabase RFCs 2 | 3 | [Supabase RFCs]: #supabase-rfcs 4 | 5 | Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be 6 | implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow. 7 | 8 | Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a 9 | bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Supabase community. 10 | 11 | The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent 12 | and controlled path for new features to enter the ecosystem and standard 13 | libraries, so that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction that 14 | Supabase is evolving in. 15 | 16 | 17 | ## Table of Contents 18 | [Table of Contents]: #table-of-contents 19 | 20 | - [Opening](#supabase-rfcs) 21 | - [Table of Contents] 22 | - [When you need to follow this process] 23 | - [Before creating an RFC] 24 | - [What the process is] 25 | - [The RFC life-cycle] 26 | - [Reviewing RFCs] 27 | - [Implementing an RFC] 28 | - [RFC Postponement] 29 | - [Help this is all too informal!] 30 | - [License] 31 | - [Contributions] 32 | 33 | 34 | ## When you need to follow this process 35 | [When you need to follow this process]: #when-you-need-to-follow-this-process 36 | 37 | You need to follow this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to 38 | Supabase, or the RFC process itself. What constitutes a 39 | "substantial" change is evolving based on community norms and varies depending 40 | on what part of the ecosystem you are proposing to change, but may include the 41 | following. 42 | 43 | If you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through 44 | the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first. 45 | 46 | 47 | ## Before creating an RFC 48 | [Before creating an RFC]: #before-creating-an-rfc 49 | 50 | A hastily-proposed RFC can hurt its chances of acceptance. Low quality 51 | proposals, proposals for previously-rejected features, or those that don't fit 52 | into the near-term roadmap, may be quickly rejected, which can be demotivating 53 | for the unprepared contributor. Laying some groundwork ahead of the RFC can 54 | make the process smoother. 55 | 56 | Although there is no single way to prepare for submitting an RFC, it is 57 | generally a good idea to pursue feedback from other project developers 58 | beforehand, to ascertain that the RFC may be desirable; having a consistent 59 | impact on the project requires concerted effort toward consensus-building. 60 | 61 | The most common preparations for writing and submitting an RFC include talking 62 | the idea in our GitHub Discussions. 63 | 64 | As a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing project 65 | developers is a good indication that the RFC is worth pursuing. 66 | 67 | 68 | ## What the process is 69 | [What the process is]: #what-the-process-is 70 | 71 | In short, to get a major feature added to Supabase, one must first get the RFC 72 | merged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is 73 | "active" and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Supabase. 74 | 75 | - Fork the RFC repo [RFC repository] 76 | - Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where "my-feature" is 77 | descriptive). Don't assign an RFC number yet; This is going to be the PR 78 | number and we'll rename the file accordingly if the RFC is accepted. 79 | - Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present 80 | convincing motivation, demonstrate lack of understanding of the design's 81 | impact, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to 82 | be poorly-received. 83 | - Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design 84 | feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to 85 | revise it in response. 86 | - Now that your RFC has an open pull request, use the issue number of the PR 87 | to update your `0000-` prefix to that number. 88 | - Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are 89 | much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any 90 | comments. Feel free to reach out to the RFC assignee in particular to get 91 | help identifying stakeholders and obstacles. 92 | - RFCs rarely go through this process unchanged, especially as alternatives 93 | and drawbacks are shown. You can make edits, big and small, to the RFC to 94 | clarify or change the design, but make changes as new commits to the pull 95 | request, and leave a comment on the pull request explaining your changes. 96 | Specifically, do not squash or rebase commits after they are visible on the 97 | pull request. 98 | - At some point, a member of the team will propose a "motion for final 99 | comment period" (FCP), along with a *disposition* for the RFC (merge, close, 100 | or postpone). 101 | - This step is taken when enough of the tradeoffs have been discussed that 102 | the team is in a position to make a decision. That does not require 103 | consensus amongst all participants in the RFC thread (which is usually 104 | impossible). However, the argument supporting the disposition on the RFC 105 | needs to have already been clearly articulated, and there should not be a 106 | strong consensus *against* that position outside of the team. Team 107 | members use their best judgment in taking this step, and the FCP itself 108 | ensures there is ample time and notification for stakeholders to push back 109 | if it is made prematurely. 110 | - For RFCs with lengthy discussion, the motion to FCP is usually preceded by 111 | a *summary comment* trying to lay out the current state of the discussion 112 | and major tradeoffs/points of disagreement. 113 | - Before actually entering FCP, *all* relevant members of the team must sign off; 114 | this is often the point at which many team members first review the RFC 115 | in full depth. 116 | - In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or 117 | closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised, 118 | the FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode. 119 | 120 | ## The RFC life-cycle 121 | [The RFC life-cycle]: #the-rfc-life-cycle 122 | 123 | Once an RFC becomes "active" then authors may implement it and submit the 124 | feature as a pull request to the Supabase repo. Being "active" is not a rubber 125 | stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be 126 | merged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed 127 | to the feature and are amenable to merging it. 128 | 129 | Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is "active" 130 | implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does 131 | it imply anything about whether the Supabase team has been assigned the task of 132 | implementing the feature. While it is not *necessary* that the author of the 133 | RFC also write the implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see 134 | an RFC through to completion: authors should not expect that other project 135 | developers will take on responsibility for implementing their accepted feature. 136 | 137 | Modifications to "active" RFCs can be done in follow-up pull requests. We 138 | strive to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of 139 | the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every 140 | merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the 141 | next major release. 142 | 143 | In general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very 144 | minor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes 145 | should be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC. Exactly what counts 146 | as a "very minor change" is up to the team to decide. 147 | 148 | 149 | ## Reviewing RFCs 150 | [Reviewing RFCs]: #reviewing-rfcs 151 | 152 | While the RFC pull request is up, the team may schedule meetings with the 153 | author and/or relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues in greater detail, 154 | and in some cases the topic may be discussed at a team meeting. In either 155 | case a summary from the meeting will be posted back to the RFC pull request. 156 | 157 | The team makes final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks 158 | are well understood. These decisions can be made at any time, but the team 159 | will regularly issue decisions. When a decision is made, the RFC pull request 160 | will either be merged or closed. In either case, if the reasoning is not clear 161 | from the discussion in thread, the sub-team will add a comment describing the 162 | rationale for the decision. 163 | 164 | 165 | ## Implementing an RFC 166 | [Implementing an RFC]: #implementing-an-rfc 167 | 168 | Some accepted RFCs represent vital features that need to be implemented right 169 | away. Other accepted RFCs can represent features that can wait until some 170 | arbitrary developer feels like doing the work. Every accepted RFC has an 171 | associated issue tracking its implementation in a Supabase repository; thus that 172 | associated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the 173 | team uses for all issues in a Supabase repository. 174 | 175 | The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC 176 | author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for 177 | review after the RFC has been accepted. 178 | 179 | If you are interested in working on the implementation for an "active" RFC, but 180 | cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask 181 | (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue). 182 | 183 | 184 | ## RFC Postponement 185 | [RFC Postponement]: #rfc-postponement 186 | 187 | Some RFC pull requests are tagged with the "postponed" label when they are 188 | closed (as part of the rejection process). An RFC closed with "postponed" is 189 | marked as such because we want neither to think about evaluating the proposal 190 | nor about implementing the described feature until some time in the future, and 191 | we believe that we can afford to wait until then to do so. Historically, 192 | "postponed" was used to postpone features until after 1.0. Postponed pull 193 | requests may be re-opened when the time is right. We don't have any formal 194 | process for that, you should ask members of the relevant sub-team. 195 | 196 | Usually an RFC pull request marked as "postponed" has already passed an 197 | informal first round of evaluation, namely the round of "do we think we would 198 | ever possibly consider making this change, as outlined in the RFC pull request, 199 | or some semi-obvious variation of it." (When the answer to the latter question 200 | is "no", then the appropriate response is to close the RFC, not postpone it.) 201 | 202 | 203 | ### Help this is all too informal! 204 | [Help this is all too informal!]: #help-this-is-all-too-informal 205 | 206 | The process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present 207 | circumstances. As usual, we are trying to let the process be driven by 208 | consensus and community norms, not impose more structure than necessary. 209 | 210 | 211 | ## License 212 | [License]: #license 213 | 214 | MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) 215 | 216 | 217 | ### Contributions 218 | [Contributions]: #contributions 219 | 220 | Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the MIT license, shall be licensed as above, without any additional terms or conditions. 221 | 222 | 223 | [RFC repository]: https://github.com/supabase/rfcs 224 | 225 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /book.toml: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [book] 2 | title = "The Rust RFC Book" 3 | 4 | [output.html] 5 | no-section-label = true 6 | git-repository-url = "https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs" 7 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /resources/project-group-workflow.svg: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 Initial work- Discuss problem area- Concrete charter- Notes on solutions- Find liaison2 Decision- Meeting + notes. . . or RFC3 Create - Zulip/Discord- Github repo + team- (etc)6 Create blog post- Overview of decisions,-  RFCs, other output- Thoughts on process,difficulties encountered
No
No
Consensus
to create?
Consensus...
Yes
YesNot created7 Archive- Archive repository- Archive Zulip/Discordany other related items4 Group works(Can include  follow-up RFCs with finalized designs)5 Active work stops- No one has time- Higher priority work arose- Blocking issue - Work sufficiently complete- Idea not good enoughViewer does not support full SVG 1.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /rfc/0001-rfc-process.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | - Feature Name: `rfc_process` 2 | - Start Date: 2021-10-07 3 | - RFC PR: [supabase/rfcs#0001](https://github.com/supabase/rfcs/pull/0001) 4 | - Supabase Issue: [supabase/supabase#0000](https://github.com/supabase/supabase/issues/0000) 5 | 6 | # Summary 7 | [summary]: #summary 8 | 9 | Initializing the RFC process for Supabase. 10 | 11 | # Motivation 12 | [motivation]: #motivation 13 | 14 | We want a way to publicly discuss large and upcoming changes to Supabase. 15 | 16 | # Guide-level explanation 17 | [guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation 18 | 19 | This is a f 20 | 21 | 22 | # Reference-level explanation 23 | [reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation 24 | 25 | N/A 26 | 27 | # Drawbacks 28 | [drawbacks]: #drawbacks 29 | 30 | Too much process can slow things down. 31 | 32 | # Rationale and alternatives 33 | [rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives 34 | 35 | N/A 36 | 37 | # Prior art 38 | [prior-art]: #prior-art 39 | 40 | This RFC process is based on the Rust RFC process. This was chosen over the Nix process as it seems lighter and simpler 41 | (although they are both very similar). 42 | 43 | - Rust: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs 44 | - Nix: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/tree/master/rfcs 45 | 46 | 47 | # Unresolved questions 48 | [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions 49 | 50 | n/a. 51 | 52 | # Future possibilities 53 | [future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities 54 | 55 | This process is supposed to be very light for now. It is expected to evolve as we continue to develop the process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------