While it's good to have these rules written down for reference, they apply exclusively to committers, who by definition are familiar with the project and probably work on it daily, so there's no need to have them front and center when a separate page will do. Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx> --- docs/committer-guidelines.rst | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ docs/hacking.rst | 33 --------------------------------- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) create mode 100644 docs/committer-guidelines.rst diff --git a/docs/committer-guidelines.rst b/docs/committer-guidelines.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..3be08e6fed --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/committer-guidelines.rst @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +==================== +Committer guidelines +==================== + +The AUTHORS files indicates the list of people with commit access +right who can actually merge the patches. + +The general rule for committing a patch is to make sure it has +been reviewed properly in the mailing-list first, usually if a +couple of people gave an ACK or +1 to a patch and nobody raised an +objection on the list it should be good to go. If the patch +touches a part of the code where you're not the main maintainer, +or where you do not have a very clear idea of how things work, +it's better to wait for a more authoritative feedback though. +Before committing, please also rebuild locally, run 'make check +syntax-check', and make sure you don't raise errors. + +An exception to 'review and approval on the list first' is fixing +failures to build: + +- if a recently committed patch breaks compilation on a platform + or for a given driver, then it's fine to commit a minimal fix + directly without getting the review feedback first +- if make check or make syntax-check breaks, if there is an + obvious fix, it's fine to commit immediately. The patch should + still be sent to the list (or tell what the fix was if + trivial), and 'make check syntax-check' should pass too, before + committing anything +- fixes for documentation and code comments can be managed in the + same way, but still make sure they get reviewed if non-trivial. +- (ir)regular pulls from other repositories or automated updates, + such as the keycodemap submodule updates, pulling in new + translations or updating the container images for the CI system diff --git a/docs/hacking.rst b/docs/hacking.rst index 35c246bf26..39e303c103 100644 --- a/docs/hacking.rst +++ b/docs/hacking.rst @@ -321,36 +321,3 @@ There is more on this subject, including lots of links to background reading on the subject, on `Richard Jones' guide to working with open source projects <http://people.redhat.com/rjones/how-to-supply-code-to-open-source-projects/>`__. - -Libvirt committer guidelines -============================ - -The AUTHORS files indicates the list of people with commit access -right who can actually merge the patches. - -The general rule for committing a patch is to make sure it has -been reviewed properly in the mailing-list first, usually if a -couple of people gave an ACK or +1 to a patch and nobody raised an -objection on the list it should be good to go. If the patch -touches a part of the code where you're not the main maintainer, -or where you do not have a very clear idea of how things work, -it's better to wait for a more authoritative feedback though. -Before committing, please also rebuild locally, run 'make check -syntax-check', and make sure you don't raise errors. - -An exception to 'review and approval on the list first' is fixing -failures to build: - -- if a recently committed patch breaks compilation on a platform - or for a given driver, then it's fine to commit a minimal fix - directly without getting the review feedback first -- if make check or make syntax-check breaks, if there is an - obvious fix, it's fine to commit immediately. The patch should - still be sent to the list (or tell what the fix was if - trivial), and 'make check syntax-check' should pass too, before - committing anything -- fixes for documentation and code comments can be managed in the - same way, but still make sure they get reviewed if non-trivial. -- (ir)regular pulls from other repositories or automated updates, - such as the keycodemap submodule updates, pulling in new - translations or updating the container images for the CI system -- 2.25.1
