This document briefly describes how to contribute to the Reproducible MS-based Research Guidelines project.
Before you Begin
If you have an idea for a section, rule or guideline to add, it is best to communicate with the Eubic Community. The most common venues for this are GitHub issues. Browse through existing GitHub issues and if one seems related, comment on it. If no existing issue seems appropriate, a new issue can be opened using this form. The project is also generally available via email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
How to Contribute
All changes to the guidelines should be made through pull requests to this repository (with just two exceptions outlined below).
If you are new to Git, the Try Git tutorial is a good places to start. More learning resources are listed at https://help.github.com/articles/good-resources-for-learning-git-and-github/ .
Make sure you have a free GitHub account.
Fork the container repository on GitHub to make your changes. (
Additions of new features to the guidelines be pushed to the
git checkout guide_dev).
Major refactoring of the guidelines, their structure should not be fixed via pull request - please responsibly disclose these by e-mailing them to (Johannes Griss, email@example.com) or (Yasset Perez-Riverol, firstname.lastname@example.org). The Eubic group and the core contributors of these guidelines will provide you credit for the discovery when publicly after the discussion of the major changes.
Commit and push your changes to your fork.
Open a pull request with these changes. You pull request message ideally should include:
A description of why the changes should be made.
A description of the implementation of the changes.
A description of how to test the changes.
The MS-based Research Reproducible Guidelines is filled with comments and ideas for enhancements and we believe would make the best entry points for new contributors.
Handling Pull Requests
Everyone is encouraged to express opinions and issue non-binding votes on pull requests, but only members of the contributors group may issue binding votes on pull requests.
Votes on pull requests should take the form of +1, 0, -1, and fractions as outlined by the Apache Foundation.
Pull requests modifying pre-existing releases should be restricted to bug fixes and require at least 2 +1 binding votes from someone other than the author of the pull request with no -1 binding votes.
Pull requests changing or clarifying the procedures governing this repository:
- Must be made to the
guide_devbranch of this repository.
- Must remain open for at least 192 hours (unless every qualified committer has voted).
- Require binding +1 votes from at least 25% of qualified committers with no -1 binding votes.
- Should be titled with the prefix [PROCEDURES] and tagged with the procedures tag in Github.
- Should not be modified once open. If changes are needed, the pull request should be closed, re-opened with modifications, and votes reset.
- Should be restricted to just modifying the procedures and generally should not contain code modifications.
- If the pull request adds or removes committers, there must be a separate pull request for each person added or removed.
Any other pull request requires at least 1 +1 binding vote from someone other than the author of the pull request. A member of the committers group merging a pull request is considered an implicit +1.
Pull requests marked [WIP] (i.e. work in progress) in the title by the author(s), or tagged WIP via GitHub tags, may not be merged without coordinating the removal of that tag with the pull request author(s), and completing the removal of that tag from wherever it is present in the open pull request.
Except in the case of pull requests modifying governance procedures, there are generally no objective guidelines defining how long pull requests must remain open for comment. Subjectively speaking though - larger and more potentially controversial pull requests containing enhancements should remain open for a at least a few days to give everyone the opportunity to weigh in.
A note on vetoes (-1 votes) taken verbatim from the Apache Foundation:
"A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetoes stand until and unless withdrawn by their casters.
To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
For votes regarding non-coding issues such as procedure changes, the requirement that a veto is accompanied by a technical justification is relaxed somewhat, though a well reasoned justification must still be included.
A -1 vote on any recently merged pull request requires an immediate reversion of the merged pull request. The backout of such a pull request invokes a mandatory, minimum 72 hour, review period.
- Recently merged pull requests are defined as a being within the past 168 hours (7 days), so as to not prevent forward progress, while allowing for reversions of things merged without proper review and consensus.
- The person issuing the -1 vote will, upon commenting
-1with technical justification per the vetoes section, immediately open a pull request to revert the original merge in question. If any committer other than the -1 issuer deems the justification technical - regardless of whether they agree with justification - that committer must then merge the pull request to revert.
Direct Commit Access
The Eubic <committers group may only commit directly to the repo (i.e. outside of a pull request and not following the procedures described here) the following two categories of patches:
- Patches for serious security vulnerabilities.
- Cherry-picking and/or merging of existing approved commits to other branches.