394 lines
15 KiB
XML
394 lines
15 KiB
XML
<chapter xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"
|
|
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
|
|
xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
|
|
version="5.0"
|
|
xml:id="sec-reviewing-contributions">
|
|
|
|
<title>Reviewing contributions</title>
|
|
|
|
<warning>
|
|
<para>The following section is a draft and reviewing policy is still being
|
|
discussed.</para>
|
|
</warning>
|
|
|
|
<para>The nixpkgs projects receives a fairly high number of contributions via
|
|
GitHub pull-requests. Reviewing and approving these is an important task and a
|
|
way to contribute to the project.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>The high change rate of nixpkgs make any pull request that is open for
|
|
long enough subject to conflicts that will require extra work from the
|
|
submitter or the merger. Reviewing pull requests in a timely manner and being
|
|
responsive to the comments is the key to avoid these. Github provides sort
|
|
filters that can be used to see the <link
|
|
xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc">most
|
|
recently</link> and the <link
|
|
xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc">least
|
|
recently</link> updated pull-requests.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>When reviewing a pull request, please always be nice and polite.
|
|
Controversial changes can lead to controversial opinions, but it is important
|
|
to respect every community members and their work.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>GitHub provides reactions, they are a simple and quick way to provide
|
|
feedback to pull-requests or any comments. The thumb-down reaction should be
|
|
used with care and if possible accompanied with some explanations so the
|
|
submitter has directions to improve his contribution.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>Pull-requests reviews should include a list of what has been reviewed in a
|
|
comment, so other reviewers and mergers can know the state of the
|
|
review.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>All the review template samples provided in this section are generic and
|
|
meant as examples. Their usage is optional and the reviewer is free to adapt
|
|
them to his liking.</para>
|
|
|
|
<section><title>Package updates</title>
|
|
|
|
<para>A package update is the most trivial and common type of pull-request.
|
|
These pull-requests mainly consist in updating the version part of the package
|
|
name and the source hash.</para>
|
|
<para>It can happen that non trivial updates include patches or more complex
|
|
changes.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>Reviewing process:</para>
|
|
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit
|
|
rights)</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para><literal>8.has: package (update)</literal> and any topic
|
|
label that fit the updated package.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the package versioning is fitting the
|
|
guidelines.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the commit text is fitting the
|
|
guidelines.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the package maintainers are notified.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>mention-bot usually notify GitHub users based on the
|
|
submitted changes, but it can happen that it misses some of the
|
|
package maintainers.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the meta field contains correct
|
|
information.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>License can change with version updates, so it should be
|
|
checked to be fitting upstream license.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>If the package has no maintainer, a maintainer must be
|
|
set. This can be the update submitter or a community member that
|
|
accepts to take maintainership of the package.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the code contains no typos.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Building the package locally.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Pull-requests are often targeted to the master or staging
|
|
branch so building the pull-request locally as it is submitted can
|
|
trigger a large amount of source builds.</para>
|
|
<para>It is possible to rebase the changes on nixos-unstable or
|
|
nixpkgs-unstable for easier review by running the following commands
|
|
from a nixpkgs clone.
|
|
<screen>
|
|
$ git remote add channels https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-channels.git <co
|
|
xml:id='reviewing-rebase-1' />
|
|
$ git fetch channels nixos-unstable <co xml:id='reviewing-rebase-2' />
|
|
$ git fetch origin pull/PRNUMBER/head <co xml:id='reviewing-rebase-3' />
|
|
$ git rebase --onto nixos-unstable BASEBRANCH FETCH_HEAD <co
|
|
xml:id='reviewing-rebase-4' />
|
|
</screen>
|
|
<calloutlist>
|
|
<callout arearefs='reviewing-rebase-1'>
|
|
<para>This should be done only once to be able to fetch channel
|
|
branches from the nixpkgs-channels repository.</para>
|
|
</callout>
|
|
<callout arearefs='reviewing-rebase-2'>
|
|
<para>Fetching the nixos-unstable branch.</para>
|
|
</callout>
|
|
<callout arearefs='reviewing-rebase-3'>
|
|
<para>Fetching the pull-request changes, <varname>PRNUMBER</varname>
|
|
is the number at the end of the pull-request title and
|
|
<varname>BASEBRANCH</varname> the base branch of the
|
|
pull-request.</para>
|
|
</callout>
|
|
<callout arearefs='reviewing-rebase-3'>
|
|
<para>Rebasing the pull-request changes to the nixos-unstable
|
|
branch.</para>
|
|
</callout>
|
|
</calloutlist>
|
|
</para>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem>
|
|
<para>The <link xlink:href="https://github.com/madjar/nox">nox</link>
|
|
tool can be used to review a pull-request content in a single command.
|
|
It doesn't rebase on a channel branch so it might trigger multiple
|
|
source builds. <varname>PRNUMBER</varname> should be replaced by the
|
|
number at the end of the pull-request title.</para>
|
|
<screen>
|
|
$ nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review -k pr PRNUMBER"
|
|
</screen>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Running every binary.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
|
|
<example><title>Sample template for a package update review</title>
|
|
<screen>
|
|
##### Reviewed points
|
|
|
|
- [ ] package name fits guidelines
|
|
- [ ] package version fits guidelines
|
|
- [ ] package build on ARCHITECTURE
|
|
- [ ] executables tested on ARCHITECTURE
|
|
- [ ] all depending packages build
|
|
|
|
##### Possible improvements
|
|
|
|
##### Comments
|
|
|
|
</screen></example>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<section><title>New packages</title>
|
|
|
|
<para>New packages are a common type of pull-requests. These pull requests
|
|
consists in adding a new nix-expression for a package.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>Reviewing process:</para>
|
|
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit
|
|
rights)</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para><literal>8.has: package (new)</literal> and any topic
|
|
label that fit the new package.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the package versioning is fitting the
|
|
guidelines.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the commit name is fitting the
|
|
guidelines.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the meta field contains correct
|
|
information.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>License must be checked to be fitting upstream
|
|
license.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Platforms should be set or the package will not get binary
|
|
substitutes.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>A maintainer must be set, this can be the package
|
|
submitter or a community member that accepts to take maintainership of
|
|
the package.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the code contains no typos.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure the package source.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Mirrors urls should be used when
|
|
available.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>The most appropriate function should be used (e.g.
|
|
packages from GitHub should use
|
|
<literal>fetchFromGitHub</literal>).</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Building the package locally.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Running every binary.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
|
|
<example><title>Sample template for a new package review</title>
|
|
<screen>
|
|
##### Reviewed points
|
|
|
|
- [ ] package path fits guidelines
|
|
- [ ] package name fits guidelines
|
|
- [ ] package version fits guidelines
|
|
- [ ] package build on ARCHITECTURE
|
|
- [ ] executables tested on ARCHITECTURE
|
|
- [ ] `meta.description` is set and fits guidelines
|
|
- [ ] `meta.license` fits upstream license
|
|
- [ ] `meta.platforms` is set
|
|
- [ ] `meta.maintainers` is set
|
|
- [ ] build time only dependencies are declared in `nativeBuildInputs`
|
|
- [ ] source is fetched using the appropriate function
|
|
- [ ] phases are respected
|
|
- [ ] patches that are remotely available are fetched with `fetchpatch`
|
|
|
|
##### Possible improvements
|
|
|
|
##### Comments
|
|
|
|
</screen></example>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<section><title>Module updates</title>
|
|
|
|
<para>Module updates are submissions changing modules in some ways. These often
|
|
contains changes to the options or introduce new options.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>Reviewing process</para>
|
|
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit
|
|
rights)</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para><literal>8.has: module (update)</literal> and any topic
|
|
label that fit the module.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the module maintainers are notified.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Mention-bot notify GitHub users based on the submitted
|
|
changes, but it can happen that it miss some of the package
|
|
maintainers.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the module tests, if any, are
|
|
succeeding.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the introduced options are correct.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Type should be appropriate (string related types differs
|
|
in their merging capabilities, <literal>optionSet</literal> and
|
|
<literal>string</literal> types are deprecated).</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Description, default and example should be
|
|
provided.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that option changes are backward compatible.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para><literal>mkRenamedOptionModule</literal> and
|
|
<literal>mkAliasOptionModule</literal> functions provide way to make
|
|
option changes backward compatible.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that removed options are declared with
|
|
<literal>mkRemovedOptionModule</literal></para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that changes that are not backward compatible are
|
|
mentioned in release notes.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that documentations affected by the change is
|
|
updated.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
|
|
<example><title>Sample template for a module update review</title>
|
|
<screen>
|
|
##### Reviewed points
|
|
|
|
- [ ] changes are backward compatible
|
|
- [ ] removed options are declared with `mkRemovedOptionModule`
|
|
- [ ] changes that are not backward compatible are documented in release notes
|
|
- [ ] module tests succeed on ARCHITECTURE
|
|
- [ ] options types are appropriate
|
|
- [ ] options description is set
|
|
- [ ] options example is provided
|
|
- [ ] documentation affected by the changes is updated
|
|
|
|
##### Possible improvements
|
|
|
|
##### Comments
|
|
|
|
</screen></example>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<section><title>New modules</title>
|
|
|
|
<para>New modules submissions introduce a new module to NixOS.</para>
|
|
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit
|
|
rights)</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para><literal>8.has: module (new)</literal> and any topic label
|
|
that fit the module.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the module tests, if any, are
|
|
succeeding.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the introduced options are correct.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Type should be appropriate (string related types differs
|
|
in their merging capabilities, <literal>optionSet</literal> and
|
|
<literal>string</literal> types are deprecated).</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Description, default and example should be
|
|
provided.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that module <literal>meta</literal> field is
|
|
present</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>Maintainers should be declared in
|
|
<literal>meta.maintainers</literal>.</para></listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Module documentation should be declared with
|
|
<literal>meta.doc</literal>.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
<listitem><para>Ensure that the module respect other modules
|
|
functionality.</para>
|
|
<itemizedlist>
|
|
<listitem><para>For example, enabling a module should not open firewall
|
|
ports by default.</para></listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
</listitem>
|
|
</itemizedlist>
|
|
|
|
<example><title>Sample template for a new module review</title>
|
|
<screen>
|
|
##### Reviewed points
|
|
|
|
- [ ] module path fits the guidelines
|
|
- [ ] module tests succeed on ARCHITECTURE
|
|
- [ ] options have appropriate types
|
|
- [ ] options have default
|
|
- [ ] options have example
|
|
- [ ] options have descriptions
|
|
- [ ] No unneeded package is added to system.environmentPackages
|
|
- [ ] meta.maintainers is set
|
|
- [ ] module documentation is declared in meta.doc
|
|
|
|
##### Possible improvements
|
|
|
|
##### Comments
|
|
|
|
</screen></example>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<section><title>Other submissions</title>
|
|
|
|
<para>Other type of submissions requires different reviewing steps.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>If you consider having enough knowledge and experience in a topic and
|
|
would like to be a long-term reviewer for related submissions, please contact
|
|
the current reviewers for that topic. They will give you information about the
|
|
reviewing process.
|
|
The main reviewers for a topic can be hard to find as there is no list, but
|
|
checking past pull-requests to see who reviewed or git-blaming the code to see
|
|
who committed to that topic can give some hints.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>Container system, boot system and library changes are some examples of the
|
|
pull requests fitting this category.</para>
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<section><title>Merging pull-requests</title>
|
|
|
|
<para>It is possible for community members that have enough knowledge and
|
|
experience on a special topic to contribute by merging pull requests.</para>
|
|
|
|
<para>TODO: add the procedure to request merging rights.</para>
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
The following paragraph about how to deal with unactive contributors is just a
|
|
proposition and should be modified to what the community agrees to be the right
|
|
policy.
|
|
|
|
<para>Please note that contributors with commit rights unactive for more than
|
|
three months will have their commit rights revoked.</para>
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
<para>In a case a contributor leaves definitively the Nix community, he should
|
|
create an issue or notify the mailing list with references of packages and
|
|
modules he maintains so the maintainership can be taken over by other
|
|
contributors.</para>
|
|
|
|
</section>
|
|
</chapter>
|