diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.md | 368 |
1 files changed, 368 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.md b/Documentation/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..68b5cc43c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.md @@ -0,0 +1,368 @@ +coreboot Gerrit Etiquette and Guidelines +======================================== + +The following rules are the requirements for behavior in the coreboot +codebase in gerrit. These have mainly been unwritten rules up to this +point, and should be familiar to most users who have been active in +coreboot for a period of time. Following these rules will help reduce +friction in the community. + +Note that as with many rules, there are exceptions. Some have been noted +in the 'More Detail' section. If you feel there is an exception not listed +here, please discuss it in the mailing list to get this document updated. +Don't just assume that it's okay, even if someone on IRC says it is. + + +Summary +------- +These are the expectations for committing, reviewing, and submitting code +into coreboot git and gerrit. While breaking individual rules may not have +immediate consequences, the coreboot leadership may act on repeated or +flagrant violations with or without notice. + +* Don't violate the licenses. +* Let non-trivial patches sit in a review state for at least 24 hours +before submission. +* Try to coordinate with platform maintainers when making changes to +platforms. +* If you give a patch a -2, you are responsible for giving concrete +recommendations for what could be changed to resolve the issue the patch +addresses. +* Don't modify other people's patches without their consent. +* Be respectful to others when commenting. +* Don’t submit patches that you know will break other platforms. + + +More detail +----------- +* Don't violate the licenses. If you're submitting code that you didn't +write yourself, make sure the license is compatible with the license of the +project you're submitting the changes to. If you’re submitting code that +you wrote that might be owned by your employer, make sure that your +employer is aware and you are authorized to submit the code. For +clarification, see the Developer's Certificate of Origin in the coreboot +[Signed-off-by policy](https://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Sign-off_Procedure). + +* In general, patches should remain open for review for at least 24 hours +since the last significant modification to the change. The purpose is to +let coreboot developers around the world have a chance to review. Complex +reworks, even if they don't change the purpose of the patch but the way +it's implemented, should restart the wait period. + +* A change can go in without the wait period if its purpose is to fix +a recently-introduced issue (build, boot or OS-level compatibility, not +necessarily identified by coreboot.org facilities). Its commit message +has to explain what change introduced the problem and the nature of +the problem so that the emergency need becomes apparent. The change +itself should be as limited in scope and impact as possible to make it +simple to assess the impact. Such a change can be merged early with 3 +Code-Review+2. For emergency fixes that affect a single project (SoC, +mainboard, ...) it's _strongly_ recommended to get a review by somebody +not involved with that project to ensure that the documentation of the +issue is clear enough. + +* Trivial changes that deal with minor issues like inconsistencies in +whitespace or spelling fixes that don't impact the final binary output +also don't need to wait. Such changes should point out in their commit +messages how the the author verified that the binary output is identical +(e.g. a TIMELESS build for a given configuration). When submitting +such changes early, the submitter must be different from the author +and must document the intent in the Gerrit discussion, e.g. "landed the +change early because it's trivial". Note that trivial fixes shouldn't +necessarily be expedited: Just like they're not critical enough for +things to go wrong because of them, they're not critical enough to +require quick handling. This exception merely serves to acknowledge that +a round-the-world review just isn't necessary for some types of changes. + +* As explained in our Code of Conduct, we try to assume the best of each +other in this community. It's okay to discuss mistakes (e.g. isolated +instances of non-trivial and non-critical changes submitted early) but +try to keep such inquiries blameless. If a change leads to problems with +our code, the focus should be on fixing the issue, not on assigning blame. + +* Do not +2 patches that you authored or own, even for something as trivial +as whitespace fixes. When working on your own patches, it’s easy to +overlook something like accidentally updating file permissions or git +submodule commit IDs. Let someone else review the patch. An exception to +this would be if two people worked in the patch together. If both +2 the +patch, that is acceptable, as each is giving a +2 to the other's work. + +* Try to coordinate with platform maintainers and other significant +contributors to the code when making changes to platforms. The platform +maintainers are the users who initially pushed the code for that platform, +as well as users who have made significant changes to a platform. To find +out who maintains a piece of code, please use util/scripts/maintainers.go +or refer to the original author of the code in git log. + +* If you give a patch a -2, you are responsible for giving concrete +recommendations for what could be changed to resolve the issue the patch +addresses. If you feel strongly that a patch should NEVER be merged, you +are responsible for defending your position and listening to other points +of view. Giving a -2 and walking away is not acceptable, and may cause your + -2 to be removed by the coreboot leadership after no less than a week. A + notification that the -2 will be removed unless there is a response will + be sent out at least 2 days before it is removed. + +* Don't modify other people's patches unless you have coordinated this with +the owner of that patch. Not only is this considered rude, but your changes +could be unintentionally lost. An exception to this would be for patches +that have not been updated for more than 90 days. In that case, the patch +can be taken over if the original author does not respond to requests for +updates. Alternatively, a new patch can be pushed with the original +content, and both patches should be updated to reference the other. + +* Be respectful to others when commenting on patches. Comments should +be kept to the code, and should be kept in a polite tone. We are a +worldwide community and English is a difficult language. Assume your +colleagues are intelligent and do not intend disrespect. Resist the urge to +retaliate against perceived verbal misconduct, such behavior is not +conducive to getting patches merged. + +* Don’t submit code that you know will break other platforms. If your patch +affects code that is used by other platforms, it should be compatible with +those platforms. While it would be nice to update any other platforms, you +must at least provide a path that will allow other platforms to continue +working. + + +Recommendations for gerrit activity +----------------------------------- +These guidelines are less strict than the ones listed above. These are more +of the “good idea” variety. You are requested to follow the below +guidelines, but there will probably be no actual consequences if they’re +not followed. That said, following the recommendations below will speed up +review of your patches, and make the members of the community do less work. + +* Each patch should be kept to one logical change, which should be +described in the title of the patch. Unrelated changes should be split out +into separate patches. Fixing whitespace on a line you’re editing is +reasonable. Fixing whitespace around the code you’re working on should be a +separate ‘cleanup’ patch. Larger patches that touch several areas are fine, +so long as they are one logical change. Adding new chips and doing code +cleanup over wide areas are two examples of this. + +* Test your patches before submitting them to gerrit. It's also appreciated +if you add a line to the commit message describing how the patch was +tested. This prevents people from having to ask whether and how the patch +was tested. Examples of this sort of comment would be ‘TEST=Built +platform’ or ‘Tested by building and booting platform’. Stating that the +patch was not tested is also fine, although you might be asked to do some +testing in cases where that would be reasonable. + +* Take advantage of the lint tools to make sure your patches don’t contain +trivial mistakes. By running ‘make gitconfig’, the lint-stable tools are +automatically put in place and will test your patches before they are +committed. As a violation of these tools will cause the jenkins build test +to fail, it’s to your advantage to test this before pushing to gerrit. + +* Don't submit patch trains longer than around 20 patches unless you +understand how to manage long patch trains. Long patch trains can become +difficult to handle and tie up the build servers for long periods of time +if not managed well. Rebasing a patch train over and over as you fix +earlier patches in the train can hide comments, and make people review the +code multiple times to see if anything has changed between revisions. When +pushing long patch trains, it is recommended to only push the full patch +train once - the initial time, and only to rebase three or four patches at +a time. + +* Run 'make what-jenkins-does' locally on patch trains before submitting. +This helps verify that the patch train won’t tie up the jenkins builders +for no reason if there are failing patches in the train. For running +parallel builds, you can specify the number of cores to use by setting the +the CPUS environment variable. Example: + make what-jenkins-does CPUS=8 + +* Use a topic when pushing a train of patches. This groups the commits +together so people can easily see the connection at the top level of +gerrit. Topics can be set for individual patches in gerrit by going into +the patch and clicking on the icon next to the topic line. Topics can also +be set when you push the patches into gerrit. For example, to push a set of +commits with the i915-kernel-x60 set, use the command: + git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%topic=i915-kernel-x60 + +* If one of your patches isn't ready to be merged, make sure it's obvious +that you don't feel it's ready for merge yet. The preferred way to show +this is by marking in the commit message that it’s not ready until X. The +commit message can be updated easily when it’s ready to be pushed. +Examples of this are "WIP: title" or "[NEEDS_TEST]: title". Another way to +mark the patch as not ready would be to give it a -1 or -2 review, but +isn't as obvious as the commit message. These patches can also be pushed with +the wip flag: + git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%wip + +* When pushing patches that are not for submission, these should be marked +as such. This can be done in the title ‘[DONOTSUBMIT]’, or can be pushed as +private changes, so that only explicitly added reviewers will see them. These +sorts of patches are frequently posted as ideas or RFCs for the community to +look at. Note that private changes can still be fetched from Gerrit by anybody +who knows their commit ID, so don't use this for sensitive changes. To push +a private change, use the command: + git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%private + +* Multiple push options can be combined: + git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%private,wip,topic=experiment + +* Respond to anyone who has taken the time to review your patches, even if +it's just to say that you disagree. While it may seem annoying to address a +request to fix spelling or 'trivial' issues, it’s generally easy to handle +in gerrit’s built-in editor. If you do use the built-in editor, remember to +get that change to your local copy before re-pushing. It's also acceptable +to add fixes for these sorts of comments to another patch, but it's +recommended that that patch be pushed to gerrit before the initial patch +gets submitted. + +* Consider breaking up large individual patches into smaller patches +grouped by areas. This makes the patches easier to review, but increases +the number of patches. The way you want to handle this is a personal +decision, as long as each patch is still one logical change. + +* If you have an interest in a particular area or mainboard, set yourself +up as a ‘maintainer’ of that area by adding yourself to the MAINTAINERS +file in the coreboot root directory. Eventually, this should automatically +add you as a reviewer when an area that you’re listed as a maintainer is +changed. + +* Submit mainboards that you’re working on to the board-status repo. This +helps others and shows that these mainboards are currently being +maintained. At some point, boards that are not up to date in the +board-status repo will probably end up getting removed from the coreboot +master branch. + +* Abandon patches that are no longer useful, or that you don’t intend to +keep working on to get submitted. + +* Bring attention to patches that you would like reviewed. Add reviewers, +ask for reviewers on IRC or even just rebase it against the current +codebase to bring it to the top of the gerrit list. If you’re not sure who +would be a good reviewer, look in the MAINTAINERS file or git history of +the files that you’ve changed, and add those people. + +* Familiarize yourself with the coreboot [commit message +guidelines](https://www.coreboot.org/Git#Commit_messages), before pushing +patches. This will help to keep annoying requests to fix your commit +message to a minimum. + +* If there have been comments or discussion on a patch, verify that the +comments have been addressed before giving a +2. If you feel that a comment +is invalid, please respond to that comment instead of just ignoring it. + +* Be conscientious when reviewing patches. As a reviewer who approves (+2) +a patch, you are responsible for the patch and the effect it has on the +codebase. In the event that the patch breaks things, you are expected to +be actively involved in the cleanup effort. This means you shouldn’t +2 a +patch just because you trust the author of a patch - Make sure you +understand what the implications of a patch might be, or leave the review +to others. Partial reviews, reviewing code style, for example, can be given +a +1 instead of a +2. This also applies if you think the patch looks good, +but may not have the experience to know if there may be unintended +consequences. + +* If there is still ongoing discussion to a patch, try to wait for a +conclusion to the discussion before submitting it to the tree. If you feel +that someone is just bikeshedding, maybe just state that and give a time +that the patch will be submitted if no new objections are raised. + +* When working with patch trains, for minor requests it’s acceptable to +create a fix addressing a comment in another patch at the end of the patch +train. This minimizes rebases of the patch train while still addressing the +request. For major problems where the change doesn’t work as intended or +breaks other platforms, the change really needs to go into the original +patch. + +* When bringing in a patch from another git repo, update the original +git/gerrit tags by prepending the lines with 'Original-'. Marking +the original text this way makes it much easier to tell what changes +happened in which repository. This applies to these lines, not the actual +commit message itself: + Commit-Id: + Change-Id: + Signed-off-by: + Reviewed-on: + Tested-by: + Reviewed-by: +The script 'util/gitconfig/rebase.sh' can be used to help automate this. +Other tags such as 'Commit-Queue' can simply be removed. + +* Check if there's documentation that needs to be updated to remain current +after your change. If there's no documentation for the part of coreboot +you're working on, consider adding some. + +* When contributing a significant change to core parts of the code base (such +as the boot state machine or the resource allocator), or when introducing +a new way of doing something that you think is worthwhile to apply across +the tree (e.g. board variants), please bring up your design on the [mailing +list](../community/forums.md). When changing behavior substantially, an +explanation of what changes and why may be useful to have, either in the +commit message or, if the discussion of the subject matter needs way more +space, in the documentation. Since "what we did in the past and why it isn't +appropriate anymore" isn't the most useful reading several years down the road, +such a description could be put into the release notes for the next version +(that you can find in Documentation/releases/) where it will inform people +now without cluttering up the regular documentation, and also gives a nice +shout-out to your contribution by the next release. + +Expectations contributors should have +------------------------------------- +* Don't expect that people will review your patch unless you ask them to. +Adding other people as reviewers is the easiest way. Asking for reviews for +individual patches in the IRC channel, or by sending a direct request to an +individual through your favorite messenger is usually the best way to get a +patch reviewed quickly. + +* Don't expect that your patch will be submitted immediately after getting +a +2. As stated previously, non-trivial patches should wait at least 24 +hours before being submitted. That said, if you feel that your patch or +series of patches has been sitting longer than needed, you can ask for it +to be submitted on IRC, or comment that it's ready for submission in the +patch. This will move it to the top of the list where it's more likely to +be noticed and acted upon. + +* Reviews are about the code. It's easy to take it personally when someone +is criticising your code, but the whole idea is to get better code into our +codebase. Again, this also applies in the other direction: review code, +criticize code, but don’t make it personal. + +Gerrit user roles +----------------- +There are a few relevant roles a user can have on Gerrit: + +- The anonymous user can check out source code. +- A registered user can also comment and give "+1" and "-1" code reviews. +- A reviewer can also give "+2" code reviews. +- A core developer can also give "-2" (that is, blocking) code reviews + and submit changes. + +Anybody can register an account on our instance, using either an +OpenID provider or OAuth through GitHub or Google. + +The reviewer group is still quite open: Any core developer can add +registered users to that group and should do so once some activity +(commits, code reviews, and so on) has demonstrated rough knowledge +of how we handle things. + +A core developer should be sufficiently well established in the +community so that they feel comfortable when submitting good patches, +when asking for improvements to less good patches and reasonably +uncomfortable when -2'ing patches. They're typically the go-to +person for _some_ part of the coreboot tree and ideally listed as its +maintainer in our MAINTAINERS registry. To become part of this group, +a candidate developer who already demonstrated proficiency with the +code base as a reviewer should be nominated, by themselves or others, +at the regular [coreboot leadership meetings](../community/forums.md) +where a decision is made. + +Core developers are expected to use their privileges for the good of the +project, which includes any of their own coreboot development but also beyond +that. They should make sure that [ready changes] don't linger around needlessly +just because their authors aren't well-connected with core developers but +submit them if they went through review and generally look reasonable. They're +also expected to help clean-up breakage as a result of their submissions. + +Since the project expects some activity by core developers, long-term absence +(as in "years") can lead to removal from the group, which can easily be +reversed after they come back. + +Requests for clarification and suggestions for updates to these guidelines +should be sent to the coreboot mailing list at <coreboot@coreboot.org>. + +[ready changes]: https://review.coreboot.org/q/age:1d+project:coreboot+status:open+is:mergeable+label:All-Comments-Resolved%253Dok+label:Code-Review%253D2+-label:Code-Review%253C0+label:Verified%253D1+-label:Verified-1 |