On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 04:49, Ray, Ian (GE Healthcare) <ian....@ge.com> wrote: > > > > > On 6 Mar 2019, at 11.28, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Going once, going twice... > > > > Any objections? More acks?
Acked-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.wayl...@gmail.com> Personally, I really see no harm in pushing this during code freeze, since it's not code. :) Thanks, Derek > > > > Let's say I'll push this and enable MRs on Friday if there are no > > further comments. More acks and I might do it sooner. :-) > > > > > > LGTM > > Acked-by: Ian Ray <ian....@ge.com> > > > > Thanks, > > pq > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:35:09 +0200 > > Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paala...@collabora.com> > >> > >> The experience from Weston shows that the Gitlab merge request based > >> workflow > >> works really well. Recently there have also been issues with the mailing > >> list > >> that have made the email based workflow more painful than it used to be. > >> Those > >> issues might have been temporary or occasional, but they probably are only > >> going to increase. > >> > >> The MR workflow is different, it has its issues > >> (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/freedesktop/freedesktop/issues/74) and we > >> likely lose the explicit Reviewed-by etc. tags from commit messages, but > >> it is > >> also much easier to work with: no more whitespace damaged patches, lost > >> email, > >> setting up git-send-email; we gain automated CI before any human reviewer > >> even > >> looks at anything, and people can jump in to an ongoing discussion even if > >> they > >> weren't subscribed before. > >> > >> If you still want email, you can subscribe to that selectively(!) in Gitlab > >> yourself. > >> > >> This text has been copied from Weston's CONTRIBUTING.md of the 5.0.91 > >> release > >> and slightly altered for Wayland. > >> > >> Fixes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland/issues/49 > >> > >> v2: fixed two left-over mentions of Weston > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paala...@collabora.com> > >> v1 Reviewed-by: Simon Ser <cont...@emersion.fr> > >> Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <dani...@collabora.com> > >> --- > >> CONTRIBUTING.md | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > >> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md > >> index 686ed63..dcc9f56 100644 > >> --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md > >> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md > >> @@ -4,8 +4,46 @@ Contributing to Wayland > >> Sending patches > >> --------------- > >> > >> -Patches should be sent to **wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org**, using > >> -`git send-email`. See [git documentation] for help. > >> +Patches should be sent via > >> +[GitLab merge > >> requests](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/gitlab-basics/add-merge-request.html). > >> +Wayland is > >> +[hosted on freedesktop.org's > >> GitLab](https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland/): > >> +in order to submit code, you should create an account on this GitLab > >> instance, > >> +fork the core Wayland repository, push your changes to a branch in your > >> new > >> +repository, and then submit these patches for review through a merge > >> request. > >> + > >> +Wayland formerly accepted patches via `git-send-email`, sent to > >> +**wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org**; these were > >> +[tracked using > >> Patchwork](https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/wayland/). > >> +Some old patches continue to be sent this way, and we may accept small new > >> +patches sent to the list, but please send all new patches through GitLab > >> merge > >> +requests. > >> + > >> + > >> +Formatting and separating commits > >> +--------------------------------- > >> + > >> +Unlike many projects using GitHub and GitLab, Wayland has a > >> +[linear, 'recipe' style > >> history](http://www.bitsnbites.eu/git-history-work-log-vs-recipe/). > >> +This means that every commit should be small, digestible, stand-alone, and > >> +functional. Rather than a purely chronological commit history like this: > >> + > >> + connection: plug a fd leak > >> + plug another fd leak > >> + connection: init fds to -1 > >> + close all fds > >> + refactor checks into a new function > >> + don't close fds we handed out > >> + > >> +we aim to have a clean history which only reflects the final state, > >> broken up > >> +into functional groupings: > >> + > >> + connection: Refactor out closure allocation > >> + connection: Clear fds we shouldn't close to -1 > >> + connection: Make wl_closure_destroy() close fds of undispatched > >> closures > >> + > >> +This ensures that the final patch series only contains the final state, > >> +without the changes and missteps taken along the development process. > >> > >> The first line of a commit message should contain a prefix indicating > >> what part is affected by the patch followed by one sentence that > >> @@ -45,7 +83,7 @@ We won't reject patches that lack S-o-b, but it is > >> strongly recommended. > >> > >> When you re-send patches, revised or not, it would be very good to > >> document the > >> changes compared to the previous revision in the commit message and/or the > >> -cover letter. If you have already received Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags, > >> you > >> +merge request. If you have already received Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags, > >> you > >> should evaluate whether they still apply and include them in the respective > >> commit messages. Otherwise the tags may be lost, reviewers miss the credit > >> they > >> deserve, and the patches may cause redundant review effort. > >> @@ -54,78 +92,37 @@ deserve, and the patches may cause redundant review > >> effort. > >> Tracking patches and following up > >> --------------------------------- > >> > >> -[Wayland > >> Patchwork](http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/wayland/list/) is > >> -used for tracking patches to Wayland. Xwayland patches are tracked with > >> the > >> -[Xorg project](https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/Xorg/list/) > >> -instead. Weston uses > >> -[GitLab merge > >> requests](https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/merge_requests) > >> -for code review, and does not use mailing list review at all. > >> - > >> -Libinput patches, even though they use the same mailing list as > >> -Wayland, are not tracked in the Wayland Patchwork. > >> - > >> -The following applies only to Wayland. > >> - > >> -If a patch is not found in Patchwork, there is a high possibility for it > >> to be > >> -forgotten. Patches attached to bug reports or not arriving to the mailing > >> list > >> -because of e.g. subscription issues will not be in Patchwork because > >> Patchwork > >> -only collects patches sent to the list. > >> - > >> -When you send a revised version of a patch, it would be very nice to mark > >> your > >> -old patch as superseded (or rejected, if that is applicable). You can > >> change > >> -the status of your own patches by registering to Patchwork - ownership is > >> -identified by email address you use to register. Updating your patch > >> status > >> -appropriately will help maintainer work. > >> - > >> -The following patch states are found in Patchwork: > >> - > >> -- **New**: > >> - Patches under discussion or not yet processed. > >> - > >> -- **Under review**: > >> - Mostly unused state. > >> - > >> -- **Accepted**: > >> - The patch is merged in the master branch upstream, as is or slightly > >> - modified. > >> - > >> -- **Rejected**: > >> - The idea or approach is rejected and cannot be fixed by revising > >> - the patch. > >> - > >> -- **RFC**: > >> - Request for comments, not meant to be merged as is. > >> - > >> -- **Not applicable**: > >> - The email was not actually a patch, or the patch is not for Wayland. > >> - Libinput patches are usually automatically ignored by Wayland > >> - Patchwork, but if they get through, they will be marked as Not > >> - applicable. > >> - > >> -- **Changes requested**: > >> - Reviewers determined that changes to the patch are needed. The > >> - submitter is expected to send a revised version. (You should > >> - not wait for your patch to be set to this state before revising, > >> - though.) > >> - > >> -- **Awaiting upstream**: > >> - Mostly unused as the patch is waiting for upstream actions but > >> - is not shown in the default list, which means it is easy to > >> - overlook. > >> - > >> -- **Superseded**: > >> - A revised version of the patch has been submitted. > >> - > >> -- **Deferred**: > >> - Used mostly during freeze periods before releases, to temporarily > >> - hide patches that cannot be merged during a freeze. > >> - > >> -Note, that in the default listing, only patches in *New* or *Under > >> review* are > >> -shown. > >> - > >> -There is also a command line interface to Patchwork called `pwclient`, see > >> -http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/wayland/ > >> -for links where to get it and the sample `.pwclientrc` for Wayland. > >> +Once submitted to GitLab, your patches will be reviewed by the Wayland > >> +development team on GitLab. Review may be entirely positive and result in > >> your > >> +code landing instantly, in which case, great! You're done. However, we > >> may ask > >> +you to make some revisions: fixing some bugs we've noticed, working to a > >> +slightly different design, or adding documentation and tests. > >> + > >> +If you do get asked to revise the patches, please bear in mind the notes > >> above. > >> +You should use `git rebase -i` to make revisions, so that your patches > >> follow > >> +the clear linear split documented above. Following that split makes it > >> easier > >> +for reviewers to understand your work, and to verify that the code you're > >> +submitting is correct. > >> + > >> +A common request is to split single large patch into multiple patches. > >> This can > >> +happen, for example, if when adding a new feature you notice a bug > >> elsewhere > >> +which you need to fix to progress. Separating these changes into separate > >> +commits will allow us to verify and land the bugfix quickly, pushing part > >> of > >> +your work for the good of everyone, whilst revision and discussion > >> continues on > >> +the larger feature part. It also allows us to direct you towards > >> reviewers who > >> +best understand the different areas you are working on. > >> + > >> +When you have made any requested changes, please rebase the commits, > >> verify > >> +that they still individually look good, then force-push your new branch to > >> +GitLab. This will update the merge request and notify everyone subscribed > >> to > >> +your merge request, so they can review it again. > >> + > >> +There are also > >> +[many GitLab CLI > >> clients](https://about.gitlab.com/applications/#cli-clients), > >> +if you prefer to avoid the web interface. It may be difficult to follow > >> review > >> +comments without using the web interface though, so we do recommend using > >> this > >> +to go through the review process, even if you use other clients to track > >> the > >> +list of available patches. > >> > >> > >> Coding style > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wayland-devel mailing list > > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel > > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
