beenull/moby
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Remove reviewing process from MAINTAINERS

Browse source 
The pull request reviewing process and labeling strategy is described as
part of a dedicated file in `project/REVIEWING.md`: remove the existing
description from the `MAINTAINERS` file.

Signed-off-by: Arnaud Porterie <arnaud.porterie@docker.com>
This commit is contained in:
Arnaud Porterie 2015-07-15 13:56:04 -07:00
parent 386f11a63d
commit 57c43960f8
1 changed files with 0 additions and 90 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

90
MAINTAINERS
View file

@ -124,98 +124,8 @@ the relevant operators.
* If the change affects the governance, philosophy, goals or principles of the project,
it must be approved by BDFL.
* A pull request can be in 1 of 5 distinct states, for each of which there is a corresponding label
that needs to be applied. `Rules.review.states` contains the list of states with possible targets
for each.
"""
# Triage
[Rules.review.states.0-needs-triage]
# Maintainers are expected to triage new incoming pull requests by removing
# the `0-triage` label and adding the correct labels (e.g. `1-design-review`)
# potentially skipping some steps depending on the kind of pull request.
# Use common sense for judging.
#
# Checking for DCO should be done at this stage.
#
# If an owner, responsible for closing or merging, can be assigned to the PR,
# the better.
close = "e.g. unresponsive contributor without DCO"
3-docs-review = "non-proposal documentation-only change"
2-code-review = "e.g. trivial bugfix"
1-design-review = "general case"
# Design review
[Rules.review.states.1-needs-design-review]
# Maintainers are expected to comment on the design of the pull request.
# Review of documentation is expected only in the context of design validation,
# not for stylistic changes.
#
# Ideally, documentation should reflect the expected behavior of the code.
# No code review should take place in this step.
#
# Once design is approved, a maintainer should make sure to remove this label
# and add the next one.
close = "design rejected"
3-docs-review = "proposals with only documentation changes"
2-code-review = "general case"
# Code review
[Rules.review.states.2-needs-code-review]
# Maintainers are expected to review the code and ensure that it is good
# quality and in accordance with the documentation in the PR.
#
# If documentation is absent but expected, maintainers should ask for documentation.
#
# All tests should pass.
#
# Once code is approved according to the rules of the subsystem, a maintainer
# should make sure to remove this label and add the next one.
close = ""
1-design-review = "raises design concerns"
4-merge = "trivial change not impacting documentation"
3-docs-review = "general case"
# Docs review
[Rules.review.states.3-needs-docs-review]
# Maintainers are expected to review the documentation in its bigger context,
# ensuring consistency, completeness, validity, and breadth of coverage across
# all extent and new documentation.
#
# They should ask for any editorial change that makes the documentation more
# consistent and easier to understand.
#
# Changes and additions to docs must be reviewed and approved (LGTM'd) by a minimum of
# two docs sub-project maintainers. If the docs change originates with a docs
# maintainer, only one additional LGTM is required (since we assume a docs maintainer
# approves of their own PR).
#
# Once documentation is approved (see below), a maintainer should make sure to remove this
# label and add the next one.
close = ""
2-code-review = "requires more code changes"
1-design-review = "raises design concerns"
4-merge = "general case"
# Merge
[Rules.review.states.4-needs-merge]
# Maintainers are expected to merge this pull request as soon as possible.
# They can ask for a rebase, or carry the pull request themselves.
# These should be the easy PRs to merge.
close = "carry PR"
merge = ""
[Rules.DCO]
title = "Helping contributors with the DCO"