diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/getting_started')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/getting_started/gerrit_guidelines.md | 368 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/getting_started/index.md | 1 |
2 files changed, 0 insertions, 369 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/getting_started/gerrit_guidelines.md b/Documentation/getting_started/gerrit_guidelines.md deleted file mode 100644 index 68b5cc43c0a2..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/getting_started/gerrit_guidelines.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,368 +0,0 @@ -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 diff --git a/Documentation/getting_started/index.md b/Documentation/getting_started/index.md index 9b9ac7f9e37d..3cfea1ef57ac 100644 --- a/Documentation/getting_started/index.md +++ b/Documentation/getting_started/index.md @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ * [Build System](build_system.md) * [Submodules](submodules.md) * [Kconfig](kconfig.md) -* [Gerrit Guidelines](gerrit_guidelines.md) * [Documentation License](license.md) * [Writing Documentation](writing_documentation.md) * [Setting up GPIOs](gpio.md) |