GraphQL RFC tracker @ benjie.dev/rfcs

[benjie]

Hey folks, just wanted to let you know that I've built a tracker for the various GraphQL RFCs. It's not finished yet (is anything ever finished?), but is still helpful - particularly when you want to know which working groups discussed a particular RFC, or keep track of the activity over time of the various RFCs.

Check it out:

👉 https://benjie.dev/rfcs/ 👈

One thing it doesn't yet handle is "merging" of RFCs, e.g. treating an issue, RFC document and RFC pull request as the same thing.

One thing I'd like to request: that we move RFC discussions from this WG repo to the spec repo itself, so a) we can use the RFC labels to track them, and b) they get one unique numeric namespace (currently the discussion numbers here and the issue/PR numbers in graphql/graphql-spec can be duplicated, so we have to namespace these discussions).

I'll probably add the above ask to the Jan WG, but do let me know your thoughts.

[martinbonnin]

Thanks for building that!

move RFC discussions from this WG repo to the spec repo itself

+1000 to that 👍

On a related topic, I'm a bit unclear when to look inside issues vs discussions in the different working group. Could we remove discussions and move everything to issues or do we need that distinction?

[benjie]

I'm a bit unclear when to look inside issues vs discussions in the different working group

I have this same problem; that's part of the reason I built the tracker. In particular I want it to be able to clearly tell you "here is the latest place to go to find out about X" where X is "incremental delivery" or "input unions" or whatever. I've not quite got there yet (and I think it'll be a little more manually curated to achieve this) but I think having stronger conventions in our own management (e.g. reliably adding the RFC labels to RFCs!) would help a lot.

I think generally discussions are seen as a more flexible way of discussing an RFC due to sub-threading, so really I think using issues should be deprecated. We can convert issues to discussions if people open an issue by mistake.

I'd be happy to discuss this in the Jan/Feb WG and then write up our new processes.

[dondonz]

This is really nice, thanks @benjie !