coreboot-kgpe-d16/Documentation/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.md

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.


Summary
-------
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.


More detail
-----------
* 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
[Signed-off-by policy](#sign-off-procedure).

* In general, patches should remain open for review for at least 24 hours
since the last significant modification to the change. The purpose is to
let coreboot developers around the world have a chance to review. Complex
reworks, even if they don't change the purpose of the patch but the way
it's implemented, should restart the wait period.

* A change can go in without the wait period if its purpose is to fix
a recently-introduced issue (build, boot or OS-level compatibility, not
necessarily identified by coreboot.org facilities). Its commit message
has to explain what change introduced the problem and the nature of
the problem so that the emergency need becomes apparent. Avoid stating
something like "fix build error" in the commit summary, describe what
the commit does instead, just like any other commit. In addition, it is
recommended to reference the commit that introduced the issue. The change
itself should be as limited in scope and impact as possible to make it
simple to assess the impact. Such a change can be merged early with 3
Code-Review+2. For emergency fixes that affect a single project (SoC,
mainboard, ...) it's _strongly_ recommended to get a review by somebody
not involved with that project to ensure that the documentation of the
issue is clear enough.

* Trivial changes that deal with minor issues like inconsistencies in
whitespace or spelling fixes that don't impact the final binary output
also don't need to wait. Such changes should point out in their commit
messages how the the author verified that the binary output is identical
(e.g. a TIMELESS build for a given configuration). When submitting
such changes early, the submitter must be different from the author
and must document the intent in the Gerrit discussion, e.g. "landed the
change early because it's trivial". Note that trivial fixes shouldn't
necessarily be expedited: Just like they're not critical enough for
things to go wrong because of them, they're not critical enough to
require quick handling. This exception merely serves to acknowledge that
a round-the-world review just isn't necessary for some types of changes.

* As explained in our Code of Conduct, we try to assume the best of each
other in this community. It's okay to discuss mistakes (e.g. isolated
instances of non-trivial and non-critical changes submitted early) but
try to keep such inquiries blameless. If a change leads to problems with
our code, the focus should be on fixing the issue, not on assigning blame.

* 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.

Sign-off Procedure
------------------
The coreboot project employs a sign-off procedure similar to what is
used by the Linux kernel. Each gerrit commit requires a sign-off line
saying that the contributed code abides by the Developer's certificate
of origin, below.
```text
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
```

Using '-s' with 'git commit' will automatically add a Signed-off-by line
to your commit message.  Patches without a Signed-off-by should not be
pushed to gerrit, and will be rejected by coreboot's CI system.

You must use your real name in the Signed-off-by line. Patches without
an associated real name cannot be committed! Refer to [this LKML thread]
and the [SCO-Linux disputes] for the rationale behind the DCO.

Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

> By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
>
> (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have
> the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the
> file; or
>
> (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of
> my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source license and
> I have the right under that license to submit that work with
> modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the
> same open source license (unless I am permitted to submit under a
> different license), as indicated in the file; or
>
> (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person
> who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it; and
>
> (d) In the case of each of (a), (b), or (c), I understand and agree
> that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of
> the contribution (including all personal information I submit with it,
> including my sign-off) is maintained indefinitely and may be
> redistributed consistent with this project or the open source license
> indicated in the file.

Note: The [Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1] is licensed under the
terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License].


Recommendations for gerrit activity
-----------------------------------
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:

```Bash
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
commits with the i915-kernel-x60 set, use the command:

```Bash
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%topic=i915-kernel-x60
```

* 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
isn't as obvious as the commit message. These patches can also be pushed with
the wip flag:

```Bash
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%wip
```

* 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
private changes, so that only explicitly added reviewers will see them. These
sorts of patches are frequently posted as ideas or RFCs for the community to
look at. Note that private changes can still be fetched from Gerrit by anybody
who knows their commit ID, so don't use this for sensitive changes. To push
a private change, use the command:

```Bash
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%private
```

* Multiple push options can be combined:

```Bash
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%private,wip,topic=experiment
```

* 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
guidelines](https://www.coreboot.org/Git#Commit_messages), before pushing
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.

* 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.

* Check if there's documentation that needs to be updated to remain current
after your change. If there's no documentation for the part of coreboot
you're working on, consider adding some.

* When contributing a significant change to core parts of the code base (such
as the boot state machine or the resource allocator), or when introducing
a new way of doing something that you think is worthwhile to apply across
the tree (e.g. board variants), please bring up your design on the [mailing
list](../community/forums.md). When changing behavior substantially, an
explanation of what changes and why may be useful to have, either in the
commit message or, if the discussion of the subject matter needs way more
space, in the documentation. Since "what we did in the past and why it isn't
appropriate anymore" isn't the most useful reading several years down the road,
such a description could be put into the release notes for the next version
(that you can find in Documentation/releases/) where it will inform people
now without cluttering up the regular documentation, and also gives a nice
shout-out to your contribution by the next release.

Expectations contributors should have
-------------------------------------
* 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.

Gerrit user roles
-----------------
There are a few relevant roles a user can have on Gerrit:

- The anonymous user can check out source code.
- A registered user can also comment and give "+1" and "-1" code reviews.
- A reviewer can also give "+2" code reviews.
- A core developer can also give "-2" (that is, blocking) code reviews
  and submit changes.

Anybody can register an account on our instance, using either an
OpenID provider or OAuth through GitHub or Google.

The reviewer group is still quite open: Any core developer can add
registered users to that group and should do so once some activity
(commits, code reviews, and so on) has demonstrated rough knowledge
of how we handle things.

A core developer should be sufficiently well established in the
community so that they feel comfortable when submitting good patches,
when asking for improvements to less good patches and reasonably
uncomfortable when -2'ing patches. They're typically the go-to
person for _some_ part of the coreboot tree and ideally listed as its
maintainer in our MAINTAINERS registry. To become part of this group,
a candidate developer who already demonstrated proficiency with the
code base as a reviewer should be nominated, by themselves or others,
at the regular [coreboot leadership meetings](../community/forums.md)
where a decision is made.

Core developers are expected to use their privileges for the good of the
project, which includes any of their own coreboot development but also beyond
that. They should make sure that [ready changes] don't linger around needlessly
just because their authors aren't well-connected with core developers but
submit them if they went through review and generally look reasonable. They're
also expected to help clean-up breakage as a result of their submissions.

Since the project expects some activity by core developers, long-term absence
(as in "years") can lead to removal from the group, which can easily be
reversed after they come back.

Requests for clarification and suggestions for updates to these guidelines
should be sent to the coreboot mailing list at <coreboot@coreboot.org>.

[ready changes]: https://review.coreboot.org/q/age:1d+project:coreboot+status:open+is:mergeable+label:All-Comments-Resolved%253Dok+label:Code-Review%253D2+-label:Code-Review%253C0+label:Verified%253D1+-label:Verified-1
[Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1]: https://developercertificate.org/
[Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
[this LKML thread]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/5/23/10
[SCO-Linux disputes]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes