Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
docs: document a breaking changes policy
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
This largely covers how to introduce a breaking change.

It also attempts to clarify what is or isn't a breaking change.

Closes bazelbuild#1424
  • Loading branch information
rickeylev committed Oct 5, 2023
1 parent 7e07684 commit 44d8cdc
Showing 1 changed file with 75 additions and 1 deletion.
76 changes: 75 additions & 1 deletion CONTRIBUTING.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -128,7 +128,9 @@ BREAKING CHANGE: <summary>
```

Where `(scope)` is optional, and `!` is only required if there is a breaking change.
If a breaking change is introduced, then `BREAKING CHANGE:` is required.
If a breaking change is introduced, then `BREAKING CHANGE:` is required; see
the [Breaking Changes](#breaking-changes) section for how to introduce breaking
changes.

Common `type`s:

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -184,6 +186,78 @@ Issues should be triaged as follows:
functionality, should also be filed in this repository but without the
`core-rules` label.

## Breaking Changes

Breaking changes are generally permitted, but we follow a 3-step process for
introducing them. The intent behind this process is to balance the difficulty of
version upgrades for users, maintaining multiple code paths, and being able to
introduce modern functionality.

The general process is:

1. In version `N`, introduce the new behavior, but it must be disabled by
default. Users can opt into the new functionality when they upgrade to
version `N`, which lets them try it and verify functionality.
2. In version `N+1`, the new behavior can be enabled by default. Users can
opt out if necessary, but doing so causes a warning to be issued.
3. In version `N+2`, the new behavior is always enabled and cannot be opted out
of. The API for the control mechanism can be removed in this release.

Note that the `+1` and `+2` releases are just examples; the steps are not
required to happen in immedially subsequent releases.


### How to control breaking changes

The details of the control mechanism will depend on the situation. Below is
a summary of some different options.

* Environment variables are best for repository rule behavior. Environment
variables can be propagated to rules and macros using the generated
`@rules_python_internal//:config.bzl` file.
* Attributes are applicable to macros and regular rules, especially when the
behavior is likely to vary on a per-target basis.
* [User defined build settings](https://bazel.build/extending/config#user-defined-build-settings)
(aka custom build flags) are applicable for rules when the behavior change
generally wouldn't vary on a per-target basis. They also have the benefit that
an entire code base can have them easily enabled by a bazel command line flag.
* Allowlists allow a project to centrally control if something is
enabled/disabled. Under the hood, they are basically a specialized custom
build flag.

Note that attributes and flags can seamlessly interoperate by having the default
controlled by a flag, and an attribute can override the flag setting. This
allows a project to enable the new behavior by default while they work to fix
problematic cases to prepare for the next upgrade.

### What is considered a breaking change?

Precisely defining what constitutes a breaking change is hard because it's
easy for _someone, somewhere_ to depend on _some_ observable behavior, despite
our best efforts to thoroughly document what is or isn't supported and hiding
any internal details.

In general, something is considered a breaking change when it changes the
direct behavior of a supported public API. Simply being able to observe a
behavior change doesn't necessarily mean it's a breaking change.

Long standing undocumented behavior is a large grey area and really depends on
how load-bearing it has become and what sort of reasonable expectation of
behavior there is.

Here's some examples of what would or wouldn't be considered a breaking change.

Breaking changes:
* Renaming an function argument for public functions.
* Enforcing stricter validation than was previously required when there's a
sensible reason users would run afoul of it.
* Changing the name of a public rule.

Not breaking changes:
* Upgrading dependencies
* Changing internal details, such as renaming an internal file.
* Changing a rule to a macro.

## FAQ

### Installation errors when during `git commit`
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 44d8cdc

Please sign in to comment.