Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
43 lines (34 loc) · 5.54 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

43 lines (34 loc) · 5.54 KB
Raw

Contributor Guidelines

🐝 There is a template for a contributing.md in brazilian-portuguese available here🐝

Pull Requests

  • DO give PRs short-but-descriptive names (e.g. "Improve code coverage for System.Console by 10%", not "Fix #1234").
  • DO NOT submit "work in progress" PRs. A PR should only be submitted when it is considered ready for review and subsequent merging by the contributor.
  • DO tag any users that should know about and/or review the change.
  • DO submit all code changes via pull requests (PRs) rather than through a direct commit. PRs will be reviewed and potentially merged by the repo maintainers after a peer review that includes at least one maintainer.
  • DO ensure each commit successfully builds. The entire PR must pass all tests in the Continuous Integration (CI) system before it'll be merged.
  • DO NOT mix independent, unrelated changes in one PR. Separate real product/test code changes from larger code formatting/dead code removal changes. Separate unrelated fixes into separate PRs, especially if they are in different assemblies.
  • DO address PR feedback in an additional commit(s) rather than amending the existing commits, and only rebase/squash them when necessary. This makes it easier for reviewers to track changes. If necessary, squashing should be handled by the merger using the "squash and merge" feature, and should only be done by the contributor upon request.

DOs and DO NOTs

  • DO follow our git style guide
  • DO give priority to the current style of the project or file you're changing even if it diverges from the general guidelines
  • DO include tests when adding new features. When fixing bugs, start with adding a test that highlights how the current behavior is broken
  • DO keep the discussions focused. When a new or related topic comes up it's often better to create a new issue than to side track the discussion
  • DO NOT make PRs for style changes
  • DO NOT surprise us with big pull requests. Instead, file an issue and start a discussion so we can agree on a direction before you invest a large amount of time working on it
  • DO NOT add API additions without filing an issue and discussing with us first

API Change Review Process

  • Contributor opens an issue. The issue description should contain a speclet that represents a sketch of the new APIs, including samples on how the APIs are being used. The goal isn't to get a complete API list, but a good handle on how the new APIs would roughly look like and in what scenarios they are being used.
  • Community discusses the proposal. If changes are necessary, the contributor is encouraged to edit the issue description. This allows folks joining later to understand the most recent proposal. To avoid confusion, the contributor should maintain a tiny change log, like a bolded "Updates:" followed by a bullet point list of the updates that were being made.
  • Issue is tagged as "Accepting PRs". Once the contributor and project owner agree on the overall shape and direction, the project owner tags the issue as "Accepting PRs". The contributor should indicate whether they will be providing the PR or only contributed the idea.
  • Pull request is being created. Once the contributor believes the implementation is ready for review, he/she creates a pull request, referencing the issue created in the first step.
  • Pull request is being reviewed. The community reviews the code for the pull request. The review should focus on the code changes and architecture – not the APIs themselves. Once at least two project owners give their OK, the PR is considered good to go.
  • Owner makes decision. When the owner believes enough information is available to make a decision, she will update the issue accordingly:
  • Mark for review. If the owner believes the proposal is actionable, she will label the issue with api-ready-for-review.
  • Close as not actionable. In case the issue didn't get enough traction to be distilled into a concrete proposal, she will close the issue.
  • Close as won't fix as proposed. Sometimes, the issue that is raised is a good one but the owner thinks the concrete proposal is not the right way to tackle the problem. In most cases, the owner will try to steer the discussion in a direction that results in a design that we believe is appropriate. However, for some proposals the problem is at the heart of the design which can't easily be changed without starting a new proposal. In those cases, the owner will close the issue and explain the issue the design has.
  • Close as won't fix. Similarly, if proposal is taking the product in a direction we simply don't want to go, the issue might also get closed. In that case, the problem isn't the proposed design but in the issue itself.
  • API gets reviewed. In the review, we'll take notes and provide feedback. After the review, we'll publish the notes in the API review repository. Multiple outcomes are possible:
  • Approved. In this case the label api-ready-for-review is replaced with api-approved.
  • Needs work. In case we believe the proposal isn't ready yet, we'll replace the label api-ready-for-review with api-needs-work.
  • Rejected. In case we believe the proposal isn't a direction we want to go after, we simply write a comment and close the issue.
  • Pull request is merged. When there are no issues – or the issues were addressed by the contributor, the PR is merged.