Initial commit

0000-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+- React Navigation Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+
+Brief explanation of the feature.
+
+# Basic example
+
+If the proposal involves a new or changed API, include a basic code example.
+Omit this section if it's not applicable.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?
+
+Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted, the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind.
+
+# Detailed design
+
+This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar with React Navigation to understand, and for somebody familiar with the implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases, and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be defined here.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Why should we *not* do this? Please consider:
+
+- implementation cost, both in term of code size and complexity
+- whether the proposed feature can be implemented in user space
+- the impact on teaching people React Navigation
+- integration of this feature with other existing and planned features
+- cost of migrating existing React Navigation codebases (is it a breaking change?)
+
+There are tradeoffs to choosing any path. Attempt to identify them here.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?
+
+# Adoption strategy
+
+If we implement this proposal, how will existing React developers adopt it? Is this a breaking change? Can we write a codemod? Should we coordinate with other projects or libraries?
+
+# How we teach this
+
+What names and terminology work best for these concepts and why? How is this idea best presented? As a continuation of existing React Navigation patterns?
+
+Would the acceptance of this proposal mean the React Navigation documentation must be re-organized or altered? Does it change how React Navigation is taught to new developers at any level?
+
+How should this feature be taught to developers already using React Navigation?
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+Optional, but suggested for first drafts. What parts of the design are still TBD?

LICENSE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+BSD License
+
+For React Navigation software
+
+Copyright (c) 2016-present, React Navigation Contributors. All rights reserved.
+
+Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
+are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
+
+ * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
+   list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+
+ * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
+   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
+   and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
+
+THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
+ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
+DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
+ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
+(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
+LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
+ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
+(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
+SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# React Navigation RFCs
+
+Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow. 
+
+Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the React Navigation core team.
+
+The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
+
+[Active RFC List](https://github.com/react-navigation/rfcs/pulls)
+
+## When to follow this process
+
+You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to React Navigation or its documentation. Some examples that would benefit from an RFC are:
+
+   - A new feature that creates new API surface area, and would
+     require a feature flag if introduced.
+   - The removal of features that already shipped.
+
+The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on your proposal before it becomes a part of a released version of React Navigation. Quite often, even proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider group of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
+
+The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into the design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully implemented.
+
+Some changes do not require an RFC:
+
+  - Rephrasing, reorganizing or refactoring
+  - Addition or removal of warnings
+  - Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality
+  criteria (speedup, memory usage)
+  - Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other implementors-of-React-Navigation, invisible to users-of-React-Navigation.
+
+## What the process is
+
+In short, to get a major feature added to React Navigation, one usually first gets the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into React Navigation.
+
+* Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/react-navigation/rfcs
+* Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where
+'my-feature' is descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet).
+* Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: **RFCs that do not
+present convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the
+impact of the design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or
+alternatives tend to be poorly-received**.
+* Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to revise it in response.
+* Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support
+are much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any
+comments.
+* Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate
+for inclusion in React Navigation.
+* RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in React Navigation will enter a "final comment period" lasting 7 days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a comment and tag on the RFCs pull request.
+* An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community. Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
+* An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of the team should then close the RFCs associated pull request.
+* An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team member will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC will become 'active'.
+
+## The RFC life-cycle
+
+Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the feature as a pull request to the React Navigation repo. Becoming 'active' is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle
+and are amenable to merging it.
+
+Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is
+'active' implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its
+implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it.
+
+Modifications to active RFCs can be done in followup PRs. We strive to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next major release; therefore we try to keep each RFC document somewhat in sync with the language feature as planned, tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the document.
+
+## Implementing an RFC
+
+The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an
+implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted.
+
+If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 'active' RFC, but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).
+
+## Reviewing RFCs
+
+Each week the team will attempt to review some set of open RFC
+pull requests.
+
+We try to make sure that any RFC that we accept is accepted at the
+weekly team meeting. Every accepted feature should have a core team champion, who will represent the feature and its progress.
+
+**React Navigation's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [React RFC process] (from which we have copied almost the entirety of this document and the template), and by extension the [Yarn RFC process], [Rust RFC process], and [Ember RFC process]**
+
+[React RFC process]: https://github.com/reactjs/rfcs
+[Yarn RFC process]: https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs
+[Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
+[Ember RFC process]: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs