Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
78 lines (53 loc) · 4.21 KB

0000-template.md

File metadata and controls

78 lines (53 loc) · 4.21 KB
  • Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, my_awesome_feature)
  • Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
  • RFC Number: (leave this empty for now - the core developers will give you a number to put here when the RFC is submitted)
  • Tracking Issue: (leave this empty - the core developers will give you a number to put here when the RFC is submitted)

Summary

One paragraph explanation of the feature.

Motivation

Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?

Guide-level explanation

Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the game and you were explaining it to another player / developer. That generally means:

  • Introducing new named concepts.
  • Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples.
  • Explaining how Agnir players and developers should think about the feature, and how it should impact the way they play Agnir. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible.
  • If applicable, provide sample screenshots, demo code, etc.
  • If applicable, describe the differences between how existing and new Agnir players / developers would adapt to the changes.

For implementation-oriented RFCs (e.g. for engine internals), this section should focus on how engine contributors should think about the change, and give examples of its concrete impact. For policy RFCs, this section should provide an example-driven introduction to the policy, and explain its impact in concrete terms.

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?

This section is really important. An RFC is more likely to be accepted if it recognises its own weaknesses and attempts to consider them as part of the proposal.

Remember: Listing drawbacks doesn't mean an RFC won't be accepted. If anything, it gives developers the confidence to move forward with the RFC, knowing what impact it may have.

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?

Prior art

Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A few examples of what this can include are:

  • Does this feature exist in other games or engines and what experience have their community had?
  • For community proposals: Is this done by some other community and what were their experiences with it?
  • For other teams: What lessons can we learn from what other communities have done here?
  • 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.

This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other games: provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture. 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 projects.

Note that while precedent set by other games is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC. Please also take into consideration that Agnir sometimes intentionally diverges from common game features.

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 stabilization?
  • 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?