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

Ray, Ian (GE Healthcare) ian.ray at ge.com
Wed Mar 6 09:33:40 UTC 2019

> On 6 Mar 2019, at 11.28, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Going once, going twice...
> Any objections? More acks?
> Let's say I'll push this and enable MRs on Friday if there are no
> further comments. More acks and I might do it sooner. :-)


Acked-by: Ian Ray <ian.ray at ge.com>

> Thanks,
> pq
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:35:09 +0200
> Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> 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
> _______________________________________________
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list