2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
coreboot Gerrit Etiquette and Guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
========================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following rules are the requirements for behavior in the coreboot
|
|
|
|
|
codebase in gerrit. These have mainly been unwritten rules up to this
|
|
|
|
|
point, and should be familiar to most users who have been active in
|
|
|
|
|
coreboot for a period of time. Following these rules will help reduce
|
|
|
|
|
friction in the community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that as with many rules, there are exceptions. Some have been noted
|
|
|
|
|
in the 'More Detail' section. If you feel there is an exception not listed
|
|
|
|
|
here, please discuss it in the mailing list to get this document updated.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't just assume that it's okay, even if someone on IRC says it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-30 20:10:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
|
|
|
-------
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
These are the expectations for committing, reviewing, and submitting code
|
|
|
|
|
into coreboot git and gerrit. While breaking individual rules may not have
|
|
|
|
|
immediate consequences, the coreboot leadership may act on repeated or
|
|
|
|
|
flagrant violations with or without notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Don't violate the licenses.
|
|
|
|
|
* Let non-trivial patches sit in a review state for at least 24 hours
|
|
|
|
|
before submission.
|
|
|
|
|
* Try to coordinate with platform maintainers when making changes to
|
|
|
|
|
platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
* If you give a patch a -2, you are responsible for giving concrete
|
|
|
|
|
recommendations for what could be changed to resolve the issue the patch
|
|
|
|
|
addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
* Don't modify other people's patches without their consent.
|
|
|
|
|
* Be respectful to others when commenting.
|
|
|
|
|
* Don’t submit patches that you know will break other platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-30 20:10:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
More detail
|
|
|
|
|
-----------
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
* Don't violate the licenses. If you're submitting code that you didn't
|
|
|
|
|
write yourself, make sure the license is compatible with the license of the
|
|
|
|
|
project you're submitting the changes to. If you’re submitting code that
|
|
|
|
|
you wrote that might be owned by your employer, make sure that your
|
|
|
|
|
employer is aware and you are authorized to submit the code. For
|
|
|
|
|
clarification, see the Developer's Certificate of Origin in the coreboot
|
2017-06-05 12:33:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
[Signed-off-by policy](https://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Sign-off_Procedure).
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Let non-trivial patches sit in a review state for at least 24 hours
|
|
|
|
|
before submission. Remember that there are coreboot developers in timezones
|
|
|
|
|
all over the world, and everyone should have a chance to contribute.
|
2019-09-15 18:19:12 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Trivial patches would be things like whitespace changes or spelling fixes,
|
|
|
|
|
in general those that don’t impact the final binary output. The
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
24-hour period would start at submission, and would be restarted at any
|
|
|
|
|
update which significantly changes any part of the patch. Patches can be
|
2019-09-15 18:19:12 +02:00
|
|
|
|
'Fast-tracked' and submitted in under 24 hours with the agreement of at
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
least 3 +2 votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Do not +2 patches that you authored or own, even for something as trivial
|
|
|
|
|
as whitespace fixes. When working on your own patches, it’s easy to
|
|
|
|
|
overlook something like accidentally updating file permissions or git
|
|
|
|
|
submodule commit IDs. Let someone else review the patch. An exception to
|
|
|
|
|
this would be if two people worked in the patch together. If both +2 the
|
|
|
|
|
patch, that is acceptable, as each is giving a +2 to the other's work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Try to coordinate with platform maintainers and other significant
|
|
|
|
|
contributors to the code when making changes to platforms. The platform
|
|
|
|
|
maintainers are the users who initially pushed the code for that platform,
|
|
|
|
|
as well as users who have made significant changes to a platform. To find
|
|
|
|
|
out who maintains a piece of code, please use util/scripts/maintainers.go
|
|
|
|
|
or refer to the original author of the code in git log.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If you give a patch a -2, you are responsible for giving concrete
|
|
|
|
|
recommendations for what could be changed to resolve the issue the patch
|
|
|
|
|
addresses. If you feel strongly that a patch should NEVER be merged, you
|
|
|
|
|
are responsible for defending your position and listening to other points
|
|
|
|
|
of view. Giving a -2 and walking away is not acceptable, and may cause your
|
|
|
|
|
-2 to be removed by the coreboot leadership after no less than a week. A
|
|
|
|
|
notification that the -2 will be removed unless there is a response will
|
|
|
|
|
be sent out at least 2 days before it is removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Don't modify other people's patches unless you have coordinated this with
|
|
|
|
|
the owner of that patch. Not only is this considered rude, but your changes
|
|
|
|
|
could be unintentionally lost. An exception to this would be for patches
|
|
|
|
|
that have not been updated for more than 90 days. In that case, the patch
|
|
|
|
|
can be taken over if the original author does not respond to requests for
|
|
|
|
|
updates. Alternatively, a new patch can be pushed with the original
|
|
|
|
|
content, and both patches should be updated to reference the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Be respectful to others when commenting on patches. Comments should
|
|
|
|
|
be kept to the code, and should be kept in a polite tone. We are a
|
|
|
|
|
worldwide community and English is a difficult language. Assume your
|
|
|
|
|
colleagues are intelligent and do not intend disrespect. Resist the urge to
|
|
|
|
|
retaliate against perceived verbal misconduct, such behavior is not
|
|
|
|
|
conducive to getting patches merged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Don’t submit code that you know will break other platforms. If your patch
|
|
|
|
|
affects code that is used by other platforms, it should be compatible with
|
|
|
|
|
those platforms. While it would be nice to update any other platforms, you
|
|
|
|
|
must at least provide a path that will allow other platforms to continue
|
|
|
|
|
working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-30 20:10:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Recommendations for gerrit activity
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
These guidelines are less strict than the ones listed above. These are more
|
|
|
|
|
of the “good idea” variety. You are requested to follow the below
|
|
|
|
|
guidelines, but there will probably be no actual consequences if they’re
|
|
|
|
|
not followed. That said, following the recommendations below will speed up
|
|
|
|
|
review of your patches, and make the members of the community do less work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Each patch should be kept to one logical change, which should be
|
|
|
|
|
described in the title of the patch. Unrelated changes should be split out
|
|
|
|
|
into separate patches. Fixing whitespace on a line you’re editing is
|
|
|
|
|
reasonable. Fixing whitespace around the code you’re working on should be a
|
|
|
|
|
separate ‘cleanup’ patch. Larger patches that touch several areas are fine,
|
|
|
|
|
so long as they are one logical change. Adding new chips and doing code
|
|
|
|
|
cleanup over wide areas are two examples of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Test your patches before submitting them to gerrit. It's also appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
if you add a line to the commit message describing how the patch was
|
|
|
|
|
tested. This prevents people from having to ask whether and how the patch
|
|
|
|
|
was tested. Examples of this sort of comment would be ‘TEST=Built
|
|
|
|
|
platform’ or ‘Tested by building and booting platform’. Stating that the
|
|
|
|
|
patch was not tested is also fine, although you might be asked to do some
|
|
|
|
|
testing in cases where that would be reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Take advantage of the lint tools to make sure your patches don’t contain
|
|
|
|
|
trivial mistakes. By running ‘make gitconfig’, the lint-stable tools are
|
|
|
|
|
automatically put in place and will test your patches before they are
|
|
|
|
|
committed. As a violation of these tools will cause the jenkins build test
|
|
|
|
|
to fail, it’s to your advantage to test this before pushing to gerrit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Don't submit patch trains longer than around 20 patches unless you
|
|
|
|
|
understand how to manage long patch trains. Long patch trains can become
|
|
|
|
|
difficult to handle and tie up the build servers for long periods of time
|
|
|
|
|
if not managed well. Rebasing a patch train over and over as you fix
|
|
|
|
|
earlier patches in the train can hide comments, and make people review the
|
|
|
|
|
code multiple times to see if anything has changed between revisions. When
|
|
|
|
|
pushing long patch trains, it is recommended to only push the full patch
|
|
|
|
|
train once - the initial time, and only to rebase three or four patches at
|
|
|
|
|
a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Run 'make what-jenkins-does' locally on patch trains before submitting.
|
|
|
|
|
This helps verify that the patch train won’t tie up the jenkins builders
|
|
|
|
|
for no reason if there are failing patches in the train. For running
|
|
|
|
|
parallel builds, you can specify the number of cores to use by setting the
|
|
|
|
|
the CPUS environment variable. Example:
|
|
|
|
|
make what-jenkins-does CPUS=8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Use a topic when pushing a train of patches. This groups the commits
|
|
|
|
|
together so people can easily see the connection at the top level of
|
|
|
|
|
gerrit. Topics can be set for individual patches in gerrit by going into
|
|
|
|
|
the patch and clicking on the icon next to the topic line. Topics can also
|
|
|
|
|
be set when you push the patches into gerrit. For example, to push a set of
|
2018-12-11 17:53:07 +01:00
|
|
|
|
commits with the i915-kernel-x60 set, use the command:
|
2018-11-30 15:34:00 +01:00
|
|
|
|
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%topic=i915-kernel-x60
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If one of your patches isn't ready to be merged, make sure it's obvious
|
|
|
|
|
that you don't feel it's ready for merge yet. The preferred way to show
|
|
|
|
|
this is by marking in the commit message that it’s not ready until X. The
|
|
|
|
|
commit message can be updated easily when it’s ready to be pushed.
|
|
|
|
|
Examples of this are "WIP: title" or "[NEEDS_TEST]: title". Another way to
|
|
|
|
|
mark the patch as not ready would be to give it a -1 or -2 review, but
|
2018-12-19 11:39:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
isn't as obvious as the commit message. These patches can also be pushed with
|
|
|
|
|
the wip flag:
|
|
|
|
|
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%wip
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* When pushing patches that are not for submission, these should be marked
|
|
|
|
|
as such. This can be done in the title ‘[DONOTSUBMIT]’, or can be pushed as
|
2018-12-19 11:39:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
private changes, so that only explicitly added reviewers will see them. These
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
sorts of patches are frequently posted as ideas or RFCs for the community
|
2018-12-19 11:39:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
to look at. To push a private change, use the command:
|
|
|
|
|
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%private
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Multiple push options can be combined:
|
|
|
|
|
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%private,wip,topic=experiment
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Respond to anyone who has taken the time to review your patches, even if
|
|
|
|
|
it's just to say that you disagree. While it may seem annoying to address a
|
|
|
|
|
request to fix spelling or 'trivial' issues, it’s generally easy to handle
|
|
|
|
|
in gerrit’s built-in editor. If you do use the built-in editor, remember to
|
|
|
|
|
get that change to your local copy before re-pushing. It's also acceptable
|
|
|
|
|
to add fixes for these sorts of comments to another patch, but it's
|
|
|
|
|
recommended that that patch be pushed to gerrit before the initial patch
|
|
|
|
|
gets submitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider breaking up large individual patches into smaller patches
|
|
|
|
|
grouped by areas. This makes the patches easier to review, but increases
|
|
|
|
|
the number of patches. The way you want to handle this is a personal
|
|
|
|
|
decision, as long as each patch is still one logical change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If you have an interest in a particular area or mainboard, set yourself
|
|
|
|
|
up as a ‘maintainer’ of that area by adding yourself to the MAINTAINERS
|
|
|
|
|
file in the coreboot root directory. Eventually, this should automatically
|
|
|
|
|
add you as a reviewer when an area that you’re listed as a maintainer is
|
|
|
|
|
changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Submit mainboards that you’re working on to the board-status repo. This
|
|
|
|
|
helps others and shows that these mainboards are currently being
|
|
|
|
|
maintained. At some point, boards that are not up to date in the
|
|
|
|
|
board-status repo will probably end up getting removed from the coreboot
|
|
|
|
|
master branch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Abandon patches that are no longer useful, or that you don’t intend to
|
|
|
|
|
keep working on to get submitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Bring attention to patches that you would like reviewed. Add reviewers,
|
|
|
|
|
ask for reviewers on IRC or even just rebase it against the current
|
|
|
|
|
codebase to bring it to the top of the gerrit list. If you’re not sure who
|
|
|
|
|
would be a good reviewer, look in the MAINTAINERS file or git history of
|
|
|
|
|
the files that you’ve changed, and add those people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Familiarize yourself with the coreboot [commit message
|
2017-06-05 12:33:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
guidelines](https://www.coreboot.org/Git#Commit_messages), before pushing
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
patches. This will help to keep annoying requests to fix your commit
|
|
|
|
|
message to a minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If there have been comments or discussion on a patch, verify that the
|
|
|
|
|
comments have been addressed before giving a +2. If you feel that a comment
|
|
|
|
|
is invalid, please respond to that comment instead of just ignoring it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Be conscientious when reviewing patches. As a reviewer who approves (+2)
|
|
|
|
|
a patch, you are responsible for the patch and the effect it has on the
|
|
|
|
|
codebase. In the event that the patch breaks things, you are expected to
|
|
|
|
|
be actively involved in the cleanup effort. This means you shouldn’t +2 a
|
|
|
|
|
patch just because you trust the author of a patch - Make sure you
|
|
|
|
|
understand what the implications of a patch might be, or leave the review
|
|
|
|
|
to others. Partial reviews, reviewing code style, for example, can be given
|
|
|
|
|
a +1 instead of a +2. This also applies if you think the patch looks good,
|
|
|
|
|
but may not have the experience to know if there may be unintended
|
|
|
|
|
consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If there is still ongoing discussion to a patch, try to wait for a
|
|
|
|
|
conclusion to the discussion before submitting it to the tree. If you feel
|
|
|
|
|
that someone is just bikeshedding, maybe just state that and give a time
|
|
|
|
|
that the patch will be submitted if no new objections are raised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* When working with patch trains, for minor requests it’s acceptable to
|
|
|
|
|
create a fix addressing a comment in another patch at the end of the patch
|
|
|
|
|
train. This minimizes rebases of the patch train while still addressing the
|
|
|
|
|
request. For major problems where the change doesn’t work as intended or
|
|
|
|
|
breaks other platforms, the change really needs to go into the original
|
|
|
|
|
patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-12-26 21:33:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
* When bringing in a patch from another git repo, update the original
|
|
|
|
|
git/gerrit tags by prepending the lines with 'Original-'. Marking
|
|
|
|
|
the original text this way makes it much easier to tell what changes
|
|
|
|
|
happened in which repository. This applies to these lines, not the actual
|
|
|
|
|
commit message itself:
|
|
|
|
|
Commit-Id:
|
|
|
|
|
Change-Id:
|
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by:
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewed-on:
|
|
|
|
|
Tested-by:
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewed-by:
|
|
|
|
|
The script 'util/gitconfig/rebase.sh' can be used to help automate this.
|
|
|
|
|
Other tags such as 'Commit-Queue' can simply be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-30 20:10:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Expectations contributors should have
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
2015-10-29 19:43:10 +01:00
|
|
|
|
* Don't expect that people will review your patch unless you ask them to.
|
|
|
|
|
Adding other people as reviewers is the easiest way. Asking for reviews for
|
|
|
|
|
individual patches in the IRC channel, or by sending a direct request to an
|
|
|
|
|
individual through your favorite messenger is usually the best way to get a
|
|
|
|
|
patch reviewed quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Don't expect that your patch will be submitted immediately after getting
|
|
|
|
|
a +2. As stated previously, non-trivial patches should wait at least 24
|
|
|
|
|
hours before being submitted. That said, if you feel that your patch or
|
|
|
|
|
series of patches has been sitting longer than needed, you can ask for it
|
|
|
|
|
to be submitted on IRC, or comment that it's ready for submission in the
|
|
|
|
|
patch. This will move it to the top of the list where it's more likely to
|
|
|
|
|
be noticed and acted upon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Reviews are about the code. It's easy to take it personally when someone
|
|
|
|
|
is criticising your code, but the whole idea is to get better code into our
|
|
|
|
|
codebase. Again, this also applies in the other direction: review code,
|
|
|
|
|
criticize code, but don’t make it personal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Requests for clarification and suggestions for updates to these guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
should be sent to the coreboot mailing list at <coreboot@coreboot.org>.
|