Remove "General Patch Series" section, as its contents should be fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document, and make this new document primarily about decisions at a larger scale. Adjust a few sentences that used to refer to an earlier description on patch discussion to refer to the SubmittingPatches document instead. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 86 +++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt index 55fa3e2185..274ddfa62c 100644 --- a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt +++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt @@ -3,79 +3,27 @@ Decision-Making Process in the Git Project Introduction ------------ -This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git +This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any particular process or changes to the current process. -Here we document how the project makes decisions for general patch series, and -for larger-scale discussions (with or without patches). - - -General Patch Series --------------------- - -Starting a Discussion -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -For most changes, discussions are started by sending a patch series to the list. -There is rarely any need to discuss or ask for approval prior to sending -patches; the merit of both the general idea behind your change and the code to -implement it will be discussed at the same time. - -NOTE: For general guides on creating and sending a patch series to the list, see -link:SubmittingPatches.html[SubmittingPatches] and -link:MyFirstContribution.html[MyFirstContribution]. The remainder of this -doc will focus more on what to expect from the list discussion. - -Because members of the Git community have a wide variety of experience, -backgrounds, and values, series are expected to include as much context as -possible. - -If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the subject of the -change, it is helpful to CC them on the proposal to increase the likelihood of -receiving constructive feedback. - -Engaging in Discussion -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the -maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's -responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested -parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is -made. - -Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is -expected that all discussion will adhere to the link:../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md[Code -of Conduct] rules. - -Finalizing a Decision -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -If the maintainer judges that positive consensus has been reached on a topic, -they will merge the series, usually to the 'next' integration branch. After a -suitable period of time for testing by the community, changes are merged from -'next' into 'master', from which official releases are tagged. - -If consensus has not been reached, discussion may continue, or the proposal may -be abandoned if no one continues discussion. More rarely, explicit negative -consensus may be reached if the community feels that the series is not suitable, -in which case the series should be dropped and discussion ended. - -There are no strict guidelines used to judge when consensus has been reached, -but generally we expect all points of feedback to have been addressed with -either a fix or an explanation on why no change is necessary. +Here we document how the project makes decisions for discussions +(with or without patches), in scale larger than an individual patch +series (which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document). Larger Discussions (with patches) --------------------------------- -As with discussions on a general patch series, starting a larger-scale +As with discussions on an individual patch series, starting a larger-scale discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later iterations of the series (for example, -link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx/[adding -unit tests] or -link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx/[config-based -hooks]), or it might include a full implementation from the beginning. In either -case, discussion progresses as described above until consensus is reached or the -topic is dropped. +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx/[adding unit tests] or +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx/[config-based hooks]), +or it might include a full implementation from the beginning. +In either case, discussion progresses the same way for an individual patch series, +until consensus is reached or the topic is dropped. Larger Discussions (without patches) @@ -85,9 +33,8 @@ These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended, policy-oriented discussions (examples: link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust] -or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@xxxxxxxxxx/[improving -submodule UX]). In either case, discussion progresses as described above for -general patch series. +or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@xxxxxxxxxx/[improving submodule UX]). +In either case, discussion progresses as described above for general patch series. For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation, it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any @@ -95,8 +42,11 @@ official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation that can be more easily debated. -If consensus around a decision has been reached but no implementation provided, -it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any particular decision. +When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original +proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen, +with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as +needed. + For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the @@ -104,6 +54,8 @@ implementation, for very large changes). For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes. +The project leadership committe (PLC) may help the implementation of +policy decisions. Other Discussion Venues -- 2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8
