# Contributing to Dogecoin Core Dogecoin Core is an open source project, and we would welcome contributions which provably improve the state of the software. For those wanting to discuss changes, or look for work that needs doing, please see: * [Projects](https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/projects) * [Dogecoindev on reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoindev/) * [Discord](https://discord.gg/dogecoin) (in particular the #core-dev channel) ## Branch Strategy Dogecoin Core's default branch is intentionally a stable release, so that anyone downloading the code and compiling it gets a stable release. Active development occurs on branches named after the version they are targetting, for example the 1.14.4 branch is named `1.14.4-dev`. When raising PRs, please raise against the relevant development branch, **not** against the `master` branch. ## Contributor Workflow The codebase is maintained using the "contributor workflow" where everyone without exception contributes patch proposals using "pull requests". This facilitates social contribution, easy testing and peer review. To contribute a patch, the workflow is as follows: - Fork repository in GitHub, and clone it your development machine. - Create topic branch from the relevant development branch. - As these branches are in the contributor's local repository, naming is not critical, although it is recommended that you include the target version. If the change relates to an issue, including its number in the branch name is also a good idea. - Commit patches to the branch. - Test your changes, which **must** include the unit and RPC tests passing. Changes will not be accepted if they do not pass tests. - Push topic branch to your copy of the repository. - Raise PR via GitHub. The project coding conventions in the [developer notes](doc/developer-notes.md) must be adhered to. In general [commits should be atomic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_commit#Atomic_commit_convention) and diffs should be easy to read. For this reason do not mix any formatting fixes or code moves with actual code changes. 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 in init.cpp") then a single title line is sufficient. Commit messages should be helpful to people reading your code in the future, so explain the reasoning for your decisions. Further explanation [here](http://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/). 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. Please refer to the [Git manual](https://git-scm.com/doc) for more information about Git. - Push changes to your fork - Create pull request 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). At this stage one should expect comments and review from other contributors. You can add more commits to your pull request by committing them locally and pushing to your fork until you have satisfied all feedback. ## Squashing Commits If your pull request is accepted for merging, you may be asked by a maintainer to squash and or [rebase](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase) your commits before it will be merged. The basic squashing workflow is shown below. git checkout your_branch_name git rebase -i HEAD~n # n is normally the number of commits in the pull # set commits from 'pick' to 'squash', save and quit # on the next screen, edit/refine commit messages # save and quit git push -f # (force push to GitHub) 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. 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 changes. This preserves the discussion and review that happened earlier for the respective change set. The length of time required for peer review is unpredictable and will vary from pull request to pull request. ## Pull Request Philosophy Patchsets should always be focused. For example, a pull request could add a feature, fix a bug, or refactor code; but not a mixture. Please also avoid super pull requests which attempt to do too much, are overly large, or overly complex as this makes review difficult. ### Features When adding a new feature, thought must be given to the long term technical debt and maintenance that feature may require after inclusion. Before proposing a new feature that will require maintenance, please consider if you are willing to maintain it (including bug fixing). If features get orphaned with no maintainer in the future, they may be removed by the Repository Maintainer. ### Refactoring Refactoring is a necessary part of any software project's evolution. The following guidelines cover refactoring pull requests for the project. There are three categories of refactoring, code only moves, code style fixes, code refactoring. In general refactoring pull requests should not mix these three kinds of activity in order to make refactoring pull requests easy to review and uncontroversial. In all cases, refactoring PRs must not change the behaviour of code within the pull request (bugs must be preserved as is). Project maintainers aim for a quick turnaround on refactoring pull requests, so where possible keep them short, uncomplex and easy to verify. ## "Decision Making" Process The following applies to code changes to the Dogecoin Core project, and is not to be confused with overall Dogecoin Network Protocol consensus changes. Whether a pull request is merged into Dogecoin Core rests with the project merge maintainers. Maintainers will take into consideration if a patch is in line with the general principles of the project; meets the minimum standards for inclusion; and will judge the general consensus of contributors. 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; - follow code style guidelines; - not break the existing test suite; - where bugs are fixed, where possible, there should be unit tests demonstrating the bug and also proving the fix. This helps prevent regression. Patches that change Dogecoin consensus rules are considerably more involved than normal because they affect the entire ecosystem and so must be preceded by extensive mailing list discussions and have a numbered BIP. While each case will be different, one should be prepared to expend more time and effort than for other kinds of patches because of increased peer review and consensus building requirements. ### Peer Review Anyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pull request. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well as test out the patch set and opine on the technical merits of the patch. Project maintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there is consensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have been spread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions). The following language is used within pull-request comments: - ACK means "I have tested the code and I agree it should be merged"; - NACK means "I disagree this should be merged", and must be accompanied by sound technical justification (or in certain cases of copyright/patent/licensing issues, legal justification). NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be disregarded; - utACK means "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged"; - Concept ACK means "I agree in the general principle of this pull request"; - Nit refers to trivial, often non-blocking issues. Reviewers should include the commit hash which they reviewed in their comments. 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. Where a patch set affects consensus critical code, the bar will be set 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. Where a patch set proposes to change the Dogecoin consensus, it must have been discussed extensively on the mailing list and IRC, be accompanied by a widely discussed BIP and have a generally widely perceived technical consensus of being a worthwhile change based on the judgement of the maintainers. ## Release Policy The project leader is the release manager for each Dogecoin Core release. ## Copyright By contributing to this repository, you agree to license your work under the MIT license unless specified otherwise in `contrib/debian/copyright` or at the top of the file itself. Any work contributed where you are not the original author must contain its license header with the original author(s) and source.