[PATCH wayland] contributing: review rules for bugs

[Emil Velikov]

Hi Pekka,

A couple small ideas come to mind:

On 27 June 2018 at 14:47, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.co.uk>
>
> Half of the ideas came from Daniel but most of them are reworded, the
> rest are my thoughts.
>
> Mention compiler warnings specifically, and be more explicit on what
> kind of code or bugs or bug fixes are acceptable or not. Clarify commit
> scope.
>
> Cc: Daniel Stone <daniels at collabora.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.co.uk>
> ---
>  CONTRIBUTING.md | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md
> index 70d0eca..51bef89 100644
> --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md
> @@ -223,11 +223,24 @@ 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 ignore corner-cases.
> +- 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.
Compiler warnings vary greatly on the compiler and it's version. It
does become a nuisance when committer/reviewer is using a newer
version which flags dozens of warnings.
That aside, worth loosening this for patches where existing code is
copied or moved?

>
> -- In a patch series, every intermediate step produces correct code as well.
> +- In a patch series, every intermediate step produces correct and warning-free
> +code as well.
>
It makes sense to move this as the final bullet-point and let it refer
to the whole section.
Namely:

- In a patch series, every intermediate step adheres to the guidelines above.

HTH
Emil