rfc(decision): Merge sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins into sentry-javascript

.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+.DS_Store

README.md

@@ -70,3 +70,4 @@ This repository contains RFCs and DACIs. Lost?
 - [0141-linking-traces](text/0141-linking-traces.md): Support Linking Traces
 - [0146-automatic-in-app-rules](text/0146-automatic-in-app-rules.md): For Java projects, when a code mapping is automatically created, also create an in-app stack trace rules to categorize the frames as in-app
 - [0148-logs-for-crashes](text/0148-logs-for-crashes.md): Logs for Crashes
+- [0149-merge-bundler-plugins](text/0149-merge-bundler-plugins.md): Merge sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins into sentry-javascript

text/0149-merge-bundler-plugins.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+- Start Date: 2026-01-23
+- RFC Type: decision
+- RFC PR: https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/pull/149
+- RFC Status: draft
+- RFC Driver: [Charly Gomez](https://github.com/chargome)
+- RFC Approver: JavaScript SDK Team
+
+# Stakeholders
+
+| Role                 | People                                    |
+| -------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
+| Driver               | @chargome / JavaScript SDK Team           |
+| Approver             | JavaScript SDK Team                       |
+| Informed (potential) | Docs Team, Other SDK Engineering Managers |
+
+# Summary
+
+This RFC proposes merging the [sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins) repository into the [sentry-javascript](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript) monorepo. This consolidation will unify versioning, reduce maintenance overhead, and improve the developer experience for both maintainers and users.
+
+# Motivation
+
+The bundler plugins (`@sentry/webpack-plugin`, `@sentry/vite-plugin`, `@sentry/rollup-plugin`, `@sentry/esbuild-plugin`) are tightly coupled to the Sentry JavaScript SDK. Maintaining them in a separate repository creates several pain points:
+
+1. **Versioning complexity**: Independent release cycles make it difficult to ensure compatibility between SDK and plugins.
+2. **Testing limitations**: Cannot easily test plugins against the actual SDK code they'll be bundling.
+3. **Contributor friction**: Developers working on cross-boundary features need to context-switch between repositories.
+4. **User confusion**: Users often file issues in the wrong repository.
+5. **Duplicate infrastructure**: Separate CI/CD pipelines, release processes, and tooling configurations.
+
+# Background
+
+The bundler plugins were originally developed in a separate repository to allow independent versioning. The plugins are built on [unplugin](https://github.com/unjs/unplugin) and provide sourcemap upload, release creation/management, release injection, and React component display names for breadcrumbs and Session Replays.
+
+## Current State
+
+| Aspect          | sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins | sentry-javascript |
+| --------------- | --------------------------------- | ----------------- |
+| License         | MIT                               | MIT               |
+| Current Version | v4.x                              | v9.x              |
+| Test Framework  | Jest                              | Vitest            |
+| Node.js Minimum | Node 16                           | Node 18+          |
+| Monorepo Tool   | Nx                                | Nx/Lerna          |
+
+**Packages to migrate:**
+- `@sentry/bundler-plugin-core`
+- `@sentry/webpack-plugin`
+- `@sentry/vite-plugin`
+- `@sentry/rollup-plugin`
+- `@sentry/esbuild-plugin`
+
+# Options Considered
+
+## Option 1: Merge into sentry-javascript monorepo (Recommended)
+
+Move all bundler plugin packages into the `sentry-javascript` repository. A two-phase approach (preparatory work in original repo, then final merge) reduces risk and allows changes to be tested in isolation.
+
+## Option 2: Keep repositories separate
+
+Maintain the current separate repository structure.
+
+**Rejected because**: Does not address the core issues of versioning complexity, testing limitations, and contributor friction.
+
+# Implementation Plan
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- [x] Verify license compatibility (both MIT)
+
+## Phase 1: Preparation (in sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins repo)
+
+On a dedicated branch (e.g., `merge-prep`):
+
+1. **Update dependencies**:
+   - Bump minimum Node.js to 18+
+   - Remove unplugin dependency ([POC](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins/pull/858)) - unplugin pins us to specific Node versions; removing it also allows us to keep Webpack 4 support
+   - Bump Sentry CLI to v3
+2. **Migrate tests from Jest to Vitest**
+3. **Audit dependencies** for conflicts with sentry-javascript
+4. **Publish final standalone version** with deprecation notice
+5. **Merge prep branch to main** when ready for migration
+
+## Phase 2: Migration to sentry-javascript
+
+1. **Merge packages** into `sentry-javascript/packages/` while preserving git history (via `git subtree` or [git-filter-repo](https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo))
+2. **Integrate with monorepo** build system and CI
+3. **Update `.craft.yml`** for new release targets
+
+## Phase 3: Release
+
+1. **Ship with sentry-javascript v11** to accommodate breaking changes
+2. **Communication**: Deprecation notice on old repo, update documentation
+
+## Phase 4: Post-Migration
+
+1. **Archive** `sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins` with README pointing to monorepo
+
+# Breaking Changes
+
+Released with v11:
+
+1. **Node.js 16 dropped** - Minimum version increased to 18+
+2. **Version number jump** - Plugins jump from v4.x to v11.x to align with SDK
+
+# Versioning Strategy
+
+- **Major versions**: Released together with sentry-javascript majors
+- **Minor/Patch versions**: Released together with sentry-javascript (all packages share same version)
+
+# Future Considerations (Out of Scope)
+
+Consolidate all plugins into a single `@sentry/bundler-plugins` package with subpath exports (e.g., `@sentry/bundler-plugins/webpack`). Would require aliasing to existing package names for backwards compatibility.
+
+# Pros and Cons
+
+## Pros
+
+- Single source of truth for all JavaScript SDK tooling
+- Consistent versioning and shared infrastructure
+- Can test plugins with actual SDK code
+- Reduced cognitive load for contributors
+- Better triaging (users don't know about separate repo)
+
+## Cons
+
+- One-time migration effort
+- Independent release cycles no longer possible without extra Craft configuration
+- Larger monorepo
+- Version jump from v4.x to v11.x may confuse users
+
+# References
+
+- [sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins repository](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript-bundler-plugins)
+- [sentry-javascript repository](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript)
+- [RFC 0086: Sentry Bundler Plugins API](https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/blob/main/text/0086-sentry-bundler-plugins-api.md)
+- [unplugin](https://github.com/unjs/unplugin)