[weston,1/4] Add CONTRIBUTING.md document

Submitted by Daniel Stone on July 14, 2018, 1:09 p.m.

Details

Message ID 20180714130907.6161-2-daniels@collabora.com
State Superseded
Headers show
Series "Doc updates, GitLab MRs" ( rev: 1 ) in Wayland

Not browsing as part of any series.

Commit Message

Daniel Stone July 14, 2018, 1:09 p.m.
From: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>

Taken from Pekka's wayland/wayland@630c25f4c160 and follow-ups, use
Wayland's CONTRIBUTING document as a basis for Weston.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
---
 CONTRIBUTING.md | 343 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 343 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.md

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4273d99d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md
@@ -0,0 +1,343 @@ 
+Contributing to Wayland
+=======================
+
+Sending patches
+---------------
+
+Patches should be sent to **wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org**, using
+`git send-email`. See [git documentation] for help.
+
+The first line of a commit message should contain a prefix indicating
+what part is affected by the patch followed by one sentence that
+describes the change. For examples:
+
+    protocol: Support scaled outputs and surfaces
+
+and
+
+    doc: generate server documentation from XML too
+
+If in doubt what prefix to use, look at other commits that change the
+same file(s) as the patch being sent.
+
+The body of the commit message should describe what the patch changes
+and why, and also note any particular side effects. This shouldn't be
+empty on most of the cases. It shouldn't take a lot of effort to write
+a commit message for an obvious change, so an empty commit message
+body is only acceptable if the questions "What?" and "Why?" are already
+answered on the one-line summary.
+
+The lines of the commit message should have at most 76 characters, to
+cope with the way git log presents them.
+
+See [notes on commit messages] for a recommended reading on writing commit
+messages.
+
+Your patches should also include a Signed-off-by line with your name and
+email address.  If you're not the patch's original author, you should
+also gather S-o-b's by them (and/or whomever gave the patch to you.) The
+significance of this is that it certifies that you created the patch,
+that it was created under an appropriate open source license, or
+provided to you under those terms.  This lets us indicate a chain of
+responsibility for the copyright status of the code.
+
+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
+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.
+
+
+Tracking patches and following up
+---------------------------------
+
+[Wayland Patchwork](http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/wayland/list/) is
+used for tracking patches to Wayland and Weston. Xwayland patches are tracked
+with the [Xorg project](https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/Xorg/list/)
+instead. 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 and Weston.
+
+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 or
+    Weston. 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/Weston.
+
+
+Coding style
+------------
+
+You should follow the style of the file you're editing. In general, we
+try to follow the rules below.
+
+**Note: this file uses spaces due to markdown rendering issues for tabs.
+  Code must be implemented using tabs.**
+
+- indent with tabs, and a tab is always 8 characters wide
+- opening braces are on the same line as the if statement;
+- no braces in an if-body with just one statement;
+- if one of the branches of an if-else condition has braces, then the
+  other branch should also have braces;
+- there is always an empty line between variable declarations and the
+  code;
+
+```c
+static int
+my_function(void)
+{
+        int a = 0;
+
+        if (a)
+                b();
+        else
+                c();
+
+        if (a) {
+                b();
+                c();
+        } else {
+                d();
+        }
+}
+```
+
+- lines should be less than 80 characters wide;
+- when breaking lines with functions calls, the parameters are aligned
+  with the opening parentheses;
+- when assigning a variable with the result of a function call, if the
+  line would be longer we break it around the equal '=' sign if it makes
+  sense;
+
+```c
+        long_variable_name =
+                function_with_a_really_long_name(parameter1, parameter2,
+                                                 parameter3, parameter4);
+
+        x = function_with_a_really_long_name(parameter1, parameter2,
+                                             parameter3, parameter4);
+```
+
+Conduct
+=======
+
+As a freedesktop.org project, Wayland follows the Contributor Covenant,
+found at:
+https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct
+
+Please conduct yourself in a respectful and civilised manner when
+interacting with community members on mailing lists, IRC, or bug
+trackers. The community represents the project as a whole, and abusive
+or bullying behaviour is not tolerated by the project.
+
+
+Licensing
+=========
+
+Wayland is licensed with the intention to be usable anywhere X.org is.
+Originally, X.org was covered under the MIT X11 license, but changed to
+the MIT Expat license.  Similarly, Wayland was covered initially as MIT
+X11 licensed, but changed to the MIT Expat license, following in X.org's
+footsteps.  Other than wording, the two licenses are substantially the
+same, with the exception of a no-advertising clause in X11 not included
+in Expat.
+
+New source code files should specify the MIT Expat license in their
+boilerplate, as part of the copyright statement.
+
+
+Review
+======
+
+All patches, even trivial ones, require at least one positive review
+(Reviewed-by). Additionally, if no Reviewed-by's have been given by
+people with commit access, there needs to be at least one Acked-by from
+someone with commit access. A person with commit access is expected to be
+able to evaluate the patch with respect to the project scope and architecture.
+
+The below review guidelines are intended to be interpreted in spirit, not by
+the letter. There may be circumstances where some guidelines are better
+ignored. We rely very much on the judgement of reviewers and commit rights
+holders.
+
+During review, the following matters should be checked:
+
+- The commit message explains why the change is being made.
+
+- The code fits the project's scope.
+
+- The code license is the same MIT licence the project generally uses.
+
+- Stable ABI or API is not broken.
+
+- Stable ABI or API additions must be justified by actual use cases, not only
+by speculation. They must also be documented, and it is strongly recommended to
+include tests excercising the additions in the test suite.
+
+- The code fits the existing software architecture, e.g. no layering
+violations.
+
+- The code is correct and does not introduce new failures for existing users,
+does not add new corner-case bugs, and does not introduce new compiler
+warnings.
+
+- The patch does what it says in the commit message and changes nothing else.
+
+- The patch is a single logical change. If the commit message addresses
+multiple points, it is a hint that the commit might need splitting up.
+
+- A bug fix should target the underlying root cause instead of hiding symptoms.
+If a complete fix is not practical, partial fixes are acceptable if they come
+with code comments and filed Gitlab issues for the remaining bugs.
+
+- The bug root cause rule applies to external software components as well, e.g.
+do not work around kernel driver issues in userspace.
+
+- The test suite passes.
+
+- The code does not depend on API or ABI which has no working free open source
+implementation.
+
+- The code is not dead or untestable. E.g. if there are no free open source
+software users for it then it is effectively dead code.
+
+- The code is written to be easy to understand, or if code cannot be clear
+enough on its own there are code comments to explain it.
+
+- The code is minimal, i.e. prefer refactor and re-use when possible unless
+clarity suffers.
+
+- The code adheres to the style guidelines.
+
+- In a patch series, every intermediate step adheres to the above guidelines.
+
+
+Commit rights
+=============
+
+Commit rights will be granted to anyone who requests them and fulfills the
+below criteria:
+
+- Submitted some (10 as a rule of thumb) non-trivial (not just simple
+  spelling fixes and whitespace adjustment) patches that have been merged
+  already.
+
+- Are actively participating in public discussions about their work (on the
+  mailing list or IRC). This should not be interpreted as a requirement to
+  review other peoples patches but just make sure that patch submission isn't
+  one-way communication. Cross-review is still highly encouraged.
+
+- Will be regularly contributing further patches. This includes regular
+  contributors to other parts of the open source graphics stack who only
+  do the occasional development in this project.
+
+- Agrees to use their commit rights in accordance with the documented merge
+  criteria, tools, and processes.
+
+To apply for commit rights, create a new issue in gitlab for the respective
+project and give it the "accounts" label.
+
+Committers are encouraged to request their commit rights get removed when they
+no longer contribute to the project. Commit rights will be reinstated when they
+come back to the project.
+
+Maintainers and committers should encourage contributors to request commit
+rights, especially junior contributors tend to underestimate their skills.
+
+
+Stabilising for releases
+========================
+
+A release cycle ends with a stable release which also starts a new cycle and
+lifts any code freezes. Gradual code freezing towards a stable release starts
+with an alpha release. The release stages of a cycle are:
+
+- **Alpha release**:
+    Signified by version number #.#.91.
+    Major features must have landed before this. Major features include
+    invasive code motion and refactoring, high risk changes, and new stable
+    library ABI.
+
+- **Beta release**:
+    Signified by version number #.#.92.
+    Minor features must have landed before this. Minor features include all
+    new features that are not major, low risk changes, clean-ups, and
+    documentation. Stable ABI that was new in the alpha release can be removed
+    before a beta release if necessary.
+
+- **Release candidates (RC)**:
+    Signified by version number #.#.93 and up to #.#.99.
+    Bug fixes that are not release critical must have landed before this.
+    Release critical bug fixes can still be landed after this, but they may
+    call for another RC.
+
+- **Stable release**:
+    Signified by version number #.#.0.
+    Ideally no changes since the last RC.
+
+Mind that version #.#.90 is never released. It is used during development when
+no code freeze is in effect. Stable branches and point releases are not covered
+by the above.
+
+
+[git documentation]: http://git-scm.com/documentation
+[notes on commit messages]: http://who-t.blogspot.de/2009/12/on-commit-messages.html