[PATCH wayland v2] contributing: use Gitlab merge request workflow

[Scott Anderson]

On 27/02/19 11:35 pm, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> From: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.com>
> 
> The experience from Weston shows that the Gitlab merge request based workflow
> works really well. Recently there have also been issues with the mailing list
> that have made the email based workflow more painful than it used to be. Those
> issues might have been temporary or occasional, but they probably are only
> going to increase.
> 
> The MR workflow is different, it has its issues
> (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/freedesktop/freedesktop/issues/74) and we
> likely lose the explicit Reviewed-by etc. tags from commit messages, but it is
> also much easier to work with: no more whitespace damaged patches, lost email,
> setting up git-send-email; we gain automated CI before any human reviewer even
> looks at anything, and people can jump in to an ongoing discussion even if they
> weren't subscribed before.
> 
> If you still want email, you can subscribe to that selectively(!) in Gitlab
> yourself.
> 
> This text has been copied from Weston's CONTRIBUTING.md of the 5.0.91 release
> and slightly altered for Wayland.
> 
> Fixes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland/issues/49
> 
> v2: fixed two left-over mentions of Weston
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.com>
> v1 Reviewed-by: Simon Ser <contact at emersion.fr>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels at collabora.com>
> ---
>   CONTRIBUTING.md | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>   1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md
> index 686ed63..dcc9f56 100644
> --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md
> @@ -4,8 +4,46 @@ Contributing to Wayland
>   Sending patches
>   ---------------
>   
> -Patches should be sent to **wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org**, using
> -`git send-email`. See [git documentation] for help.
> +Patches should be sent via
> +[GitLab merge requests](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/gitlab-basics/add-merge-request.html).
> +Wayland is
> +[hosted on freedesktop.org's GitLab](https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland/):
> +in order to submit code, you should create an account on this GitLab instance,
> +fork the core Wayland repository, push your changes to a branch in your new
> +repository, and then submit these patches for review through a merge request.
> +
> +Wayland formerly accepted patches via `git-send-email`, sent to
> +**wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org**; these were
> +[tracked using Patchwork](https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/wayland/).
> +Some old patches continue to be sent this way, and we may accept small new
> +patches sent to the list, but please send all new patches through GitLab merge
> +requests.
> +
> +
> +Formatting and separating commits
> +---------------------------------
> +
> +Unlike many projects using GitHub and GitLab, Wayland has a
> +[linear, 'recipe' style history](http://www.bitsnbites.eu/git-history-work-log-vs-recipe/).
> +This means that every commit should be small, digestible, stand-alone, and
> +functional. Rather than a purely chronological commit history like this:
> +
> +    connection: plug a fd leak
> +    plug another fd leak
> +    connection: init fds to -1
> +    close all fds
> +    refactor checks into a new function
> +    don't close fds we handed out
> +
> +we aim to have a clean history which only reflects the final state, broken up
> +into functional groupings:
> +
> +    connection: Refactor out closure allocation
> +    connection: Clear fds we shouldn't close to -1
> +    connection: Make wl_closure_destroy() close fds of undispatched closures
> +
> +This ensures that the final patch series only contains the final state,
> +without the changes and missteps taken along the development process.
>   
>   The first line of a commit message should contain a prefix indicating
>   what part is affected by the patch followed by one sentence that
> @@ -45,7 +83,7 @@ We won't reject patches that lack S-o-b, but it is strongly recommended.
>   
>   When you re-send patches, revised or not, it would be very good to document the
>   changes compared to the previous revision in the commit message and/or the
> -cover letter. If you have already received Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags, you
> +merge request. If you have already received Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags, you
>   should evaluate whether they still apply and include them in the respective
>   commit messages. Otherwise the tags may be lost, reviewers miss the credit they
>   deserve, and the patches may cause redundant review effort.
> @@ -54,78 +92,37 @@ deserve, and the patches may cause redundant review effort.
>   Tracking patches and following up
>   ---------------------------------
>   
> -[Wayland Patchwork](http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/wayland/list/) is
> -used for tracking patches to Wayland. Xwayland patches are tracked with the
> -[Xorg project](https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/Xorg/list/)
> -instead. Weston uses
> -[GitLab merge requests](https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/merge_requests)
> -for code review, and does not use mailing list review at all.
> -
> -Libinput patches, even though they use the same mailing list as
> -Wayland, are not tracked in the Wayland Patchwork.
> -
> -The following applies only to Wayland.
> -
> -If a patch is not found in Patchwork, there is a high possibility for it to be
> -forgotten. Patches attached to bug reports or not arriving to the mailing list
> -because of e.g. subscription issues will not be in Patchwork because Patchwork
> -only collects patches sent to the list.
> -
> -When you send a revised version of a patch, it would be very nice to mark your
> -old patch as superseded (or rejected, if that is applicable). You can change
> -the status of your own patches by registering to Patchwork - ownership is
> -identified by email address you use to register. Updating your patch status
> -appropriately will help maintainer work.
> -
> -The following patch states are found in Patchwork:
> -
> -- **New**:
> -    Patches under discussion or not yet processed.
> -
> -- **Under review**:
> -    Mostly unused state.
> -
> -- **Accepted**:
> -    The patch is merged in the master branch upstream, as is or slightly
> -    modified.
> -
> -- **Rejected**:
> -    The idea or approach is rejected and cannot be fixed by revising
> -    the patch.
> -
> -- **RFC**:
> -    Request for comments, not meant to be merged as is.
> -
> -- **Not applicable**:
> -    The email was not actually a patch, or the patch is not for Wayland.
> -    Libinput patches are usually automatically ignored by Wayland
> -    Patchwork, but if they get through, they will be marked as Not
> -    applicable.
> -
> -- **Changes requested**:
> -    Reviewers determined that changes to the patch are needed. The
> -    submitter is expected to send a revised version. (You should
> -    not wait for your patch to be set to this state before revising,
> -    though.)
> -
> -- **Awaiting upstream**:
> -    Mostly unused as the patch is waiting for upstream actions but
> -    is not shown in the default list, which means it is easy to
> -    overlook.
> -
> -- **Superseded**:
> -    A revised version of the patch has been submitted.
> -
> -- **Deferred**:
> -    Used mostly during freeze periods before releases, to temporarily
> -    hide patches that cannot be merged during a freeze.
> -
> -Note, that in the default listing, only patches in *New* or *Under review* are
> -shown.
> -
> -There is also a command line interface to Patchwork called `pwclient`, see
> -http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/wayland/
> -for links where to get it and the sample `.pwclientrc` for Wayland.
> +Once submitted to GitLab, your patches will be reviewed by the Wayland
> +development team on GitLab. Review may be entirely positive and result in your
> +code landing instantly, in which case, great! You're done. However, we may ask
> +you to make some revisions: fixing some bugs we've noticed, working to a
> +slightly different design, or adding documentation and tests.
> +
> +If you do get asked to revise the patches, please bear in mind the notes above.
> +You should use `git rebase -i` to make revisions, so that your patches follow
> +the clear linear split documented above. Following that split makes it easier
> +for reviewers to understand your work, and to verify that the code you're
> +submitting is correct.
> +
> +A common request is to split single large patch into multiple patches. This can
> +happen, for example, if when adding a new feature you notice a bug elsewhere
> +which you need to fix to progress. Separating these changes into separate
> +commits will allow us to verify and land the bugfix quickly, pushing part of
> +your work for the good of everyone, whilst revision and discussion continues on
> +the larger feature part. It also allows us to direct you towards reviewers who
> +best understand the different areas you are working on.
> +
> +When you have made any requested changes, please rebase the commits, verify
> +that they still individually look good, then force-push your new branch to
> +GitLab. This will update the merge request and notify everyone subscribed to
> +your merge request, so they can review it again.
> +
> +There are also
> +[many GitLab CLI clients](https://about.gitlab.com/applications/#cli-clients),
> +if you prefer to avoid the web interface. It may be difficult to follow review
> +comments without using the web interface though, so we do recommend using this
> +to go through the review process, even if you use other clients to track the
> +list of available patches.
>   
>   
>   Coding style
> 

Reviewed-by: Scott Anderson <scott.anderson at collabora.com>