nostr/damus
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of git://jb55.com/damus synced 2024-09-29 16:30:44 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: simplify contributing

Browse Source 
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:02:00 +0100
From: William Casarin <jb55@jb55.com>
To: dev@damus.io
Subject: Moving away from email code submissions

Hey there,

Since there are more people joining these days and the idea of training
everyone on how to do email code review is effectively impossible in
2024, I've decided to move away from them. I have scripts that can
convert github pull requests to do offline review on my end, so I no
longer need people to directly email them to me.

You of course can, but if you prefer to use github PRs then that is now
perfectly fine. I still may not use GitHub's code review interface, but
that is just me.

I want to encourage more code review from people other than me, if noone
is set up to do that via email then I would rather not encourage it.

Cheers,

        Will

Signed-off-by: William Casarin <jb55@jb55.com>
This commit is contained in:
William Casarin 2024-03-22 10:14:03 +01:00
parent 247f313b54
commit 68409f3440
1 changed files with 1 additions and 258 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

259
docs/CONTRIBUTING.md
View File

@ -1,24 +1,5 @@
# Contributing
[Email patches][git-send-email] to patches@damus.io are preferred, but we
accept PRs on GitHub as well. Patches sent via email may include a bolt11
lightning invoice, choosing the price you think the patch is worth, and
we will pay it once the patch is accepted and if I think the price isn't
unreasonable. You can also send an any-amount invoice and I will pay what
I think it's worth if you prefer not to choose. You can include the
bolt11 in the commit body or email so that it can be paid once it is
applied.
Recommended settings when submitting code via email:
```
$ git config sendemail.to "patches@damus.io"
$ git config format.subjectPrefix "PATCH damus"
$ git config format.signOff yes
```
You can subscribe to the [patches mailing list][patches-ml] to help review code.
## Submitting patches
*Most of this comes from the linux kernel guidelines for submitting
@ -44,20 +25,6 @@ long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch. See
the dedicated `Separate your changes` section because this is very
important.
When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the complete
patch description and justification for it. Each new version should use
the -v2,v3,vN option on git-send-email for each new patch revision. Don't
just say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
reviewer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced URLs to
find the patch description and put that into the patch. I.e., the patch
(series) and its description should be self-contained. This benefits both
the maintainers and reviewers. Some reviewers probably didn't even
receive earlier versions of the patch.
When submitting a -v2 of more than one patch, ensure that you include all of
the original patches, don't just send a v2 of one of the patches. If you
are dropping a patch, mention it in the `patch changelog`.
Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
@ -113,10 +80,6 @@ The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable
on its own merits.
If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
complete, that is OK. Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
in your patch description.
When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to
ensure that the Damus builds and runs properly after each patch in the
series. Developers using ``git bisect`` to track down a problem can end
@ -127,96 +90,7 @@ If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
Include `patch changelogs` which describe what has changed between the v1 and
v2 version of the patch. Please put this information **after** the `---` line
which separates the changelog from the rest of the patch. The version
information is not part of the changelog which gets committed to the git tree.
It is additional information for the reviewers. If it's placed above the commit
tags, it needs manual interaction to remove it. If it is below the separator
line, it gets automatically stripped off when applying the patch::
<commit message>
...
Signed-off-by: Author <author@mail>
---
V2 -> V3: Removed redundant helper function
V1 -> V2: Cleaned up coding style and addressed review comments
path/to/file | 5+++--
...
### Select the recipients for your patch
You should always copy the appropriate people on any patch to code that
they may have been involved with. You can use
[git-contacts][git-contacts] to find people who have touched the code
previously:
$ git format-patch --cover-letter -o patches origin/master..my-feature
$ git send-email --dry-run --cc-cmd=git-contacts patches/*
patches@damus.io should be used by default for all patches.
William Casarin is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
Damus. His email address is <jb55@jb55.com>.
If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that
patch to jb55@jb55.com. For severe bugs, a short embargo may be
considered to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such
cases, obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists.
### No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text.
Will and other Damus developers need to be able to read and comment
on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a Damus
developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail
tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
For this reason, all patches should be submitted by e-mail "inline". The
easiest way to do this is with `git send-email`, which is strongly
recommended. An interactive tutorial for `git send-email` is available at
[git-send-email][git-send-email]
### Respond to review comments
Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
which the patch can be improved, in the form of a reply to your email. You must
respond to those comments; ignoring reviewers is a good way to get ignored in
return. You can simply reply to their emails to answer their comments. Review
comments or questions that do not lead to a code change should almost certainly
bring about a comment or changelog entry so that the next reviewer better
understands what is going on.
Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them
for their time. Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and
reviewers sometimes get grumpy. Even in that case, though, respond
politely and address the problems they have pointed out. When sending a next
version, add a `patch changelog` to the cover letter or to individual patches
explaining difference against previous submission (see `The canonical patch format`)
### Use trimmed interleaved replies in email discussions
Top-posting is strongly discouraged in Damus development
discussions. Interleaved (or "inline") replies make conversations much
easier to follow. For more details see: [Posting style][posting-style]
As is frequently quoted on the mailing list:
A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Similarly, please trim all unneeded quotations that aren't relevant
to your reply. This makes responses easier to find, and saves time and
space. For more details see: http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
v2 version of the patch.
### Sign your work - the Developer's Certificate of Origin
@ -284,134 +158,3 @@ changelogs, please include:
The changelog script will pick these up and give you attribution for your
change
### When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:
The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
explicit ack).
Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here.
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
list archives.
If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
have been included in the discussion.
Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.
### Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it
hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. The tag is intended for
bugs; please do not use it to credit feature requests. The tag should be
followed by a Closes: tag pointing to the report, unless the report is not
available on the web. The Link: tag can be used instead of Closes: if the patch
fixes a part of the issue(s) being reported. Please note that if the bug was
reported in private, then ask for permission first before using the Reported-by
tag.
A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that
some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
appropriate modification of Damus and related libraries without any
remaining serious technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has
done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves
to give credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of
review which has been done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when
supplied by reviewers known to understand the subject area and to perform
thorough reviews, will normally increase the likelihood of your patch
getting into Damus.
Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester
or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending
next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following
version, these tags might not be applicable anymore and thus should be removed.
Usually removal of someone's Tested-by or Reviewed-by tags should be mentioned
in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).
A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this
tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the
idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our
idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the
future.
### Explicit In-Reply-To headers
It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
(e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with
previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with
the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the
series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
unmanageable forest of references in email clients.
### Providing base tree information
When other developers receive your patches and start the review process,
it is often useful for them to know where in the tree history they
should place your work. This is particularly useful for automated CI
processes that attempt to run a series of tests in order to establish
the quality of your submission before the maintainer starts the review.
If you are using `git format-patch` to generate your patches, you can
automatically include the base tree information in your submission by
using the `--base` flag. The easiest and most convenient way to use
this option is with topical branches:
$ git checkout -t -b my-topical-branch master
Branch 'my-topical-branch' set up to track local branch 'master'.
Switched to a new branch 'my-topical-branch'
[perform your edits and commits]
$ git format-patch --base=auto --cover-letter -o outgoing/ master
outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch
outgoing/0001-First-Commit.patch
outgoing/...
When you open `outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch` for editing, you will
notice that it will have the `base-commit:` trailer at the very
bottom, which provides the reviewer and the CI tools enough information
to properly perform `git am` without worrying about conflicts::
$ git checkout -b patch-review [base-commit-id]
Switched to a new branch 'patch-review'
$ git am patches.mbox
Applying: First Commit
Applying: ...
Please see ``man git-format-patch`` for more information about this
option.
[git-contacts]: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/contrib/contacts/git-contacts
[git-send-email]: http://git-send-email.io
[patches-ml]: https://damus.io/list/patches
[posting-style]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style