Document reviewing process and labels
Signed-off-by: Arnaud Porterie <arnaud.porterie@docker.com>
This commit is contained in:
Arnaud Porterie
parent
6ffce0131c
commit
6157937f67
1 changed files with 193 additions and 0 deletions
193
project/REVIEWING.md
Normal file
193
project/REVIEWING.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
|
|||
Pull request reviewing process
|
||||
==============================
|
||||
|
||||
# Labels
|
||||
|
||||
Labels are carefully picked to optimize for:
|
||||
|
||||
- Readability: maintainers must immediately know the state of a PR
|
||||
- Filtering simplicity: different labels represent many different aspects of
|
||||
the reviewing work, and can even be targetted at different maintainers groups.
|
||||
|
||||
A pull request should only be attributed labels documented in this section: other labels that may
|
||||
exist on the repository should apply to issues.
|
||||
|
||||
## DCO labels
|
||||
|
||||
* `dco/no`: automatically set by a bot when one of the commits lacks proper signature
|
||||
|
||||
## Status labels
|
||||
|
||||
* `status/0-triage`
|
||||
* `status/1-design-review`
|
||||
* `status/2-code-review`
|
||||
* `status/3-docs-review`
|
||||
* `status/4-ready-to-merge`
|
||||
|
||||
Special status labels:
|
||||
|
||||
* `status/needs-attention`: calls for a collective discussion during a review session
|
||||
|
||||
## Specialty group labels
|
||||
|
||||
Those labels are used to raise awareness of a particular specialty group, either because we need
|
||||
help in reviewing the PR, or because of the potential impact of the PR on their work:
|
||||
|
||||
* `group/distribution`
|
||||
* `group/networking`
|
||||
* `group/security`
|
||||
* `group/windows`
|
||||
|
||||
## Impact labels (apply to merged pull requests)
|
||||
|
||||
* `impact/api`
|
||||
* `impact/changelog`
|
||||
* `impact/cli`
|
||||
* `impact/dockerfile`
|
||||
* `impact/deprecation`
|
||||
|
||||
# Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
An opened pull request can be in 1 of 5 distinct states, for each of which there is a corresponding
|
||||
label that needs to be applied.
|
||||
|
||||
## Triage - `status/0-triage`
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers are expected to triage new incoming pull requests by removing the `status/0-triage`
|
||||
label and adding the correct labels (e.g. `status/1-design-review`) before any other interaction
|
||||
with the PR. The starting label may potentially skip some steps depending on the kind of pull
|
||||
request: use your best judgement.
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers should perform an initial, high-level, overview of the pull request before moving it to
|
||||
the next appropriate stage:
|
||||
|
||||
- Has DCO
|
||||
- Contains sufficient justification (e.g., usecases) for the proposed change
|
||||
- References the Github issue it fixes (if any) in the commit or the first Github comment
|
||||
|
||||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||||
|
||||
* Close: e.g., unresponsive contributor without DCO
|
||||
* `status/1-design-review`: general case
|
||||
* `status/2-code-review`: e.g. trivial bugfix
|
||||
* `status/3-docs-review`: non-proposal documentation-only change
|
||||
|
||||
## Design review - `status/1-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.
|
||||
|
||||
There are no strict rules on the way a design is validated: we usually aim for a consensus,
|
||||
although a single maintainer approval is often sufficient for obviously reasonable changes. In
|
||||
general, strong disagreement expressed by any of the maintainers should not be taken lightly.
|
||||
|
||||
Once design is approved, a maintainer should make sure to remove this label and add the next one.
|
||||
|
||||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||||
|
||||
* Close: design rejected
|
||||
* `status/2-code-review`: general case
|
||||
* `status/3-docs-review`: proposals with only documentation changes
|
||||
|
||||
## Code review - `status/2-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.
|
||||
|
||||
New testcases are expected to be added. Ideally, those testcases should fail when the new code is
|
||||
absent, and pass when present. The testcases should strive to test as many variants, code paths, as
|
||||
possible to ensure maximum coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
Changes to code must be reviewed and approved (LGTM'd) by a minimum of two code maintainers. When
|
||||
the author of a PR is a maintainer, he still needs the approval of two other maintainers.
|
||||
|
||||
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. If documentation is absent but expected, maintainers should
|
||||
ask for documentation and move to status `status/3-docs-review` for docs maintainer to follow.
|
||||
|
||||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||||
|
||||
* Close
|
||||
* `status/1-design-review`: new design concerns are raised
|
||||
* `status/3-docs-review`: general case
|
||||
* `status/4-ready-to-merge`: change not impacting documentation
|
||||
|
||||
## Docs review - `status/3-docs-review`
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers are expected to review the documentation in its bigger context, ensuring consistency,
|
||||
completeness, validity, and breadth of coverage across all existing 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.
|
||||
|
||||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||||
|
||||
* Close
|
||||
* `status/1-design-review`: new design concerns are raised
|
||||
* `status/2-code-review`: requires more code changes
|
||||
* `status/4-ready-to-merge`: general case
|
||||
|
||||
## Merge - `status/4-ready-to-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.
|
||||
|
||||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||||
|
||||
* Merge: general case
|
||||
* Close: carry PR
|
||||
|
||||
After merging a pull request, the maintainer should consider applying one or multiple impact labels
|
||||
to ease future classification:
|
||||
|
||||
* `impact/api` signifies the patch impacted the remote API
|
||||
* `impact/changelog` signifies the change is significant enough to make it in the changelog
|
||||
* `impact/cli` signifies the patch impacted a CLI command
|
||||
* `impact/dockerfile` signifies the patch impacted the Dockerfile syntax
|
||||
* `impact/deprecation` signifies the patch participates in deprecating an existing feature
|
||||
|
||||
## Close
|
||||
|
||||
If a pull request is closed it is expected that sufficient justification will be provided. In
|
||||
particular, if there are alternative ways of achieving the same net result then those needs to be
|
||||
spelled out. If the pull request is trying to solve a use case that is not one that we (as a
|
||||
community) want to support then a justification for why should be provided.
|
||||
|
||||
The number of maintainers it takes to decide and close a PR is deliberately left unspecified. We
|
||||
assume that the group of maintainers is bound by mutual trust and respect, and that opposition from
|
||||
any single maintainer should be taken into consideration. Similarly, we expect maintainers to
|
||||
justify their reasoning and to accept debating.
|
||||
|
||||
# Escalation process
|
||||
|
||||
Despite the previously described reviewing process, some PR might not show any progress for various
|
||||
reasons:
|
||||
|
||||
- No strong opinion for or against the proposed patch
|
||||
- Debates about the proper way to solve the problem at hand
|
||||
- Lack of consensus
|
||||
- ...
|
||||
|
||||
All these will eventually lead to stalled PR, where no apparent progress is made across several
|
||||
weeks, or even months.
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers should use their best judgement and apply the `status/needs-attention` label. It must
|
||||
be used sparingly, as each PR with such label will be discussed by a group of maintainers during a
|
||||
review session. The goal of that session is to agree on one of the following outcomes for the PR:
|
||||
|
||||
* Close, explaining the rationale for not pursuing further
|
||||
* Continue, either by pushing the PR further in the workflow, or by deciding to carry the patch
|
||||
(ideally, a maintainer should be immediately assigned to make sure that the PR keeps continued
|
||||
attention)
|
||||
* Escalate to Solomon by formulating a few specific questions on which his answers will allow
|
||||
maintainers to decide.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue