maxmustermann/dogecoin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge #19494: doc: CONTRIBUTING.md improvements

Browse source 
b03697b68e doc: CONTRIBUTING.md improvements (Jon Atack)

Pull request description:

  The motivation here was to add a mention of hygienic commits following a discussion today, e.g. something along the lines of:

  *Make sure each individual commit is hygienic, building successfully on its own without warnings, errors, or regressions, and that all tests pass.*

  While here, made various fixups. They are optional and can be omitted.

ACKs for top commit:
  harding:
    ACK b03697b68e Locally reviewed the word diff.
  MarcoFalke:
    ACK b03697b68e 🚌
  practicalswift:
    ACK b03697b68e
  hebasto:
    ACK b03697b68e, I have reviewed the changes and they look OK, I agree they can be merged.

Tree-SHA512: 6fb56219c311d914ec18fcf5d50fdbe3a51e4743a8cace93e348cb4a10c83b6fce631518f1455a1804d1fc81558b235bef58a8be6ccb1a010f46aa4143b1ebf5
This commit is contained in:
Wladimir J. van der Laan 2020-07-14 01:58:22 +02:00
parent 37485baa27 b03697b68e
commit 89fa736783
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 1E4AED62986CD25D
1 changed files with 62 additions and 52 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

114
CONTRIBUTING.md
View file

@ -6,27 +6,28 @@ welcome to contribute towards development in the form of peer review, testing
and patches. This document explains the practical process and guidelines for
contributing.
Firstly in terms of structure, there is no particular concept of "Core
First, in terms of structure, there is no particular concept of "Bitcoin Core
developers" in the sense of privileged people. Open source often naturally
revolves around meritocracy where longer term contributors gain more trust from
the developer community. However, some hierarchy is necessary for practical
purposes. As such there are repository "maintainers" who are responsible for
merging pull requests as well as a "lead maintainer" who is responsible for the
release cycle, overall merging, moderation and appointment of maintainers.
revolves around a meritocracy where contributors earn trust from the developer
community over time. Nevertheless, some hierarchy is necessary for practical
purposes. As such, there are repository "maintainers" who are responsible for
merging pull requests, as well as a "lead maintainer" who is responsible for the
release cycle as well as overall merging, moderation and appointment of
maintainers.
Getting Started
---------------
New contributors are very welcome and needed.
Reviewing and testing is the most effective way you can contribute as a new
contributor, and it also will teach you much more about the code and process
than opening PRs. Please refer to the section [peer review](#peer-review) later
in this document.
Reviewing and testing is highly valued and the most effective way you can contribute
as a new contributor. It also will teach you much more about the code and
process than opening pull requests. Please refer to the [peer review](#peer-review)
section below.
Before you start contributing, familiarize yourself with the Bitcoin Core build
system and tests. Refer to the documentation in the repository on how to build
Bitcoin Core and how to run the unit and functional tests.
Bitcoin Core and how to run the unit tests, functional tests, and fuzz tests.
There are many open issues of varying difficulty waiting to be fixed.
If you're looking for somewhere to start contributing, check out the
@ -62,7 +63,7 @@ history logs can be found
on [http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/](http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/)
and [http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/](http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/).
Discussion about code base improvements happens in GitHub issues and on pull
Discussion about codebase improvements happens in GitHub issues and pull
requests.
The developer
@ -75,7 +76,7 @@ Contributor Workflow
--------------------
The codebase is maintained using the "contributor workflow" where everyone
without exception contributes patch proposals using "pull requests". This
without exception contributes patch proposals using "pull requests" (PRs). This
facilitates social contribution, easy testing and peer review.
To contribute a patch, the workflow is as follows:
@ -113,6 +114,9 @@ In general, [commits should be atomic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_comm
and diffs should be easy to read. For this reason, do not mix any formatting
fixes or code moves with actual code changes.
Make sure each individual commit is hygienic: that it builds successfully on its
own without warnings, errors, regressions, or test failures.
Commit messages should be verbose by default consisting of a short subject line
(50 chars max), a blank line and detailed explanatory text as separate
paragraph(s), unless the title alone is self-explanatory (like "Corrected typo
@ -124,7 +128,7 @@ If a particular commit references another issue, please add the reference. For
example: `refs #1234` or `fixes #4321`. Using the `fixes` or `closes` keywords
will cause the corresponding issue to be closed when the pull request is merged.
Commit messages should never contain any `@` mentions.
Commit messages should never contain any `@` mentions (usernames prefixed with "@").
Please refer to the [Git manual](https://git-scm.com/doc) for more information
about Git.
@ -158,10 +162,16 @@ Examples:
qt: Add feed bump button
log: Fix typo in log message
The body of the pull request should contain enough description about what the
patch does together with any justification/reasoning. You should include
references to any discussions (for example other tickets or mailing list
discussions).
The body of the pull request should contain sufficient description of *what* the
patch does, and even more importantly, *why*, with justification and reasoning.
You should include references to any discussions (for example, other issues or
mailing list discussions).
The description for a new pull request should not contain any `@` mentions. The
PR description will be included in the commit message when the PR is merged and
any users mentioned in the description will be annoyingly notified each time a
fork of Bitcoin Core copies the merge. Instead, make any username mentions in a
subsequent comment to the PR.
### Translation changes
@ -197,13 +207,13 @@ before it will be merged. The basic squashing workflow is shown below.
# Save and quit.
git push -f # (force push to GitHub)
Please update the resulting commit message if needed. It should read as a
coherent message. In most cases, this means that you should not just list the
interim commits.
Please update the resulting commit message, if needed. It should read as a
coherent message. In most cases, this means not just listing the interim
commits.
If you have problems with squashing (or other workflows with `git`), you can
alternatively enable "Allow edits from maintainers" in the right GitHub
sidebar and ask for help in the pull request.
If you have problems with squashing or other git workflows, you can enable
"Allow edits from maintainers" in the right-hand sidebar of the GitHub web
interface and ask for help in the pull request.
Please refrain from creating several pull requests for the same change.
Use the pull request that is already open (or was created earlier) to amend
@ -287,8 +297,8 @@ In general, all pull requests must:
- Have a clear use case, fix a demonstrable bug or serve the greater good of
the project (for example refactoring for modularisation);
- Be well peer reviewed;
- Have unit tests and functional tests where appropriate;
- Be well peer-reviewed;
- Have unit tests, functional tests, and fuzz tests, where appropriate;
- Follow code style guidelines ([C++](doc/developer-notes.md), [functional tests](test/functional/README.md));
- Not break the existing test suite;
- Where bugs are fixed, where possible, there should be unit tests
@ -315,7 +325,7 @@ spread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions).
#### Conceptual Review
A review can be a conceptual review, where the reviewer leaves a comment
* `Concept (N)ACK`, meaning "I do (not) agree in the general goal of this pull
* `Concept (N)ACK`, meaning "I do (not) agree with the general goal of this pull
request",
* `Approach (N)ACK`, meaning `Concept ACK`, but "I do (not) agree with the
approach of this change".
@ -325,30 +335,28 @@ NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be disregarded.
#### Code Review
After conceptual agreement on the change, code review can be provided. It is
starting with `ACK BRANCH_COMMIT`, where `BRANCH_COMMIT` is the top of the
topic branch. The review is followed by a description of how the reviewer did
the review. The following
language is used within pull-request comments:
After conceptual agreement on the change, code review can be provided. A review
begins with `ACK BRANCH_COMMIT`, where `BRANCH_COMMIT` is the top of the PR
branch, followed by a description of how the reviewer did the review. The
following language is used within pull request comments:
- "I have tested the code", involving
change-specific manual testing in addition to running the unit and functional
tests, and in case it is not obvious how the manual testing was done, it should
be described;
- "I have tested the code", involving change-specific manual testing in
addition to running the unit, functional, or fuzz tests, and in case it is
not obvious how the manual testing was done, it should be described;
- "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks
OK, I agree it can be merged";
- Nit refers to trivial, often non-blocking issues.
- A "nit" refers to a trivial, often non-blocking issue.
Project maintainers reserve the right to weigh the opinions of peer reviewers
using common sense judgement and also may weight based on meritocracy: Those
that have demonstrated a deeper commitment and understanding towards the project
(over time) or have clear domain expertise may naturally have more weight, as
one would expect in all walks of life.
using common sense judgement and may also weigh based on merit. Reviewers that
have demonstrated a deeper commitment and understanding of the project over time
or who have clear domain expertise may naturally have more weight, as one would
expect in all walks of life.
Where a patch set affects consensus critical code, the bar will be set much
Where a patch set affects consensus-critical code, the bar will be much
higher in terms of discussion and peer review requirements, keeping in mind that
mistakes could be very costly to the wider community. This includes refactoring
of consensus critical code.
of consensus-critical code.
Where a patch set proposes to change the Bitcoin consensus, it must have been
discussed extensively on the mailing list and IRC, be accompanied by a widely
@ -365,7 +373,7 @@ about:
- It may be because of a feature freeze due to an upcoming release. During this time,
only bug fixes are taken into consideration. If your pull request is a new feature,
it will not be prioritized until the release is over. Wait for release.
it will not be prioritized until after the release. Wait for the release.
- It may be because the changes you are suggesting do not appeal to people. Rather than
nits and critique, which require effort and means they care enough to spend time on your
contribution, thundering silence is a good sign of widespread (mild) dislike of a given change
@ -375,16 +383,18 @@ about:
[developer notes](doc/developer-notes.md), is dangerous or insecure, is messily written, etc.
Identify and address any of the issues you find. Then ask e.g. on IRC if someone could give
their opinion on the concept itself.
- It may be because your code is too complex for all but a few people. And those people
- It may be because your code is too complex for all but a few people, and those people
may not have realized your pull request even exists. A great way to find people who
are qualified and care about the code you are touching is the
[Git Blame feature](https://help.github.com/articles/tracing-changes-in-a-file/). Simply
find the person touching the code you are touching before you and see if you can find
them and give them a nudge. Don't be incessant about the nudging though.
look up who last modified the code you are changing and see if you can find
them and give them a nudge. Don't be incessant about the nudging, though.
- Finally, if all else fails, ask on IRC or elsewhere for someone to give your pull request
a look. If you think you've been waiting an unreasonably long amount of time (month+) for
no particular reason (few lines changed, etc), this is totally fine. Try to return the favor
when someone else is asking for feedback on their code, and universe balances out.
a look. If you think you've been waiting for an unreasonably long time (say,
more than a month) for no particular reason (a few lines changed, etc.),
this is totally fine. Try to return the favor when someone else is asking
for feedback on their code, and the universe balances out.
- Remember that the best thing you can do while waiting is give review to others!
Backporting
@ -393,11 +403,11 @@ Backporting
Security and bug fixes can be backported from `master` to release
branches.
If the backport is non-trivial, it may be appropriate to open an
additional PR, to backport the change, only after the original PR
additional PR to backport the change, but only after the original PR
has been merged.
Otherwise, backports will be done in batches and
the maintainers will use the proper `Needs backport (...)` labels
when needed (the original author does not need to worry).
when needed (the original author does not need to worry about it).
A backport should contain the following metadata in the commit body: