mirror of
https://github.com/moby/moby.git
synced 2022-11-09 12:21:53 -05:00
Add "process" labels
Add description for "process" labels to the reviewing documentation. Also changed some headings from h1 -> h2 Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
This commit is contained in:
parent
926725b470
commit
d8c4bb19fb
1 changed files with 29 additions and 15 deletions
|
@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
|
|||
Pull request reviewing process
|
||||
==============================
|
||||
# Pull request reviewing process
|
||||
|
||||
# Labels
|
||||
## Labels
|
||||
|
||||
Labels are carefully picked to optimize for:
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -12,11 +11,11 @@ Labels are carefully picked to optimize for:
|
|||
A pull request should only be attributed labels documented in this section: other labels that may
|
||||
exist on the repository should apply to issues.
|
||||
|
||||
## DCO labels
|
||||
### DCO labels
|
||||
|
||||
* `dco/no`: automatically set by a bot when one of the commits lacks proper signature
|
||||
|
||||
## Status labels
|
||||
### Status labels
|
||||
|
||||
* `status/0-triage`
|
||||
* `status/1-design-review`
|
||||
|
@ -29,7 +28,7 @@ Special status labels:
|
|||
* `status/failing-ci`: indicates that the PR in its current state fails the test suite
|
||||
* `status/needs-attention`: calls for a collective discussion during a review session
|
||||
|
||||
## Specialty group labels
|
||||
### Specialty group labels
|
||||
|
||||
Those labels are used to raise awareness of a particular specialty group, either because we need
|
||||
help in reviewing the PR, or because of the potential impact of the PR on their work:
|
||||
|
@ -39,7 +38,7 @@ help in reviewing the PR, or because of the potential impact of the PR on their
|
|||
* `group/security`
|
||||
* `group/windows`
|
||||
|
||||
## Impact labels (apply to merged pull requests)
|
||||
### Impact labels (apply to merged pull requests)
|
||||
|
||||
* `impact/api`
|
||||
* `impact/changelog`
|
||||
|
@ -48,12 +47,26 @@ help in reviewing the PR, or because of the potential impact of the PR on their
|
|||
* `impact/distribution`
|
||||
* `impact/dockerfile`
|
||||
|
||||
# Workflow
|
||||
### Process labels (apply to merged pull requests)
|
||||
|
||||
Process labels are to assist in preparing (patch) releases. These labels should only be used for pull requests.
|
||||
|
||||
Label | Use for
|
||||
------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
`process/cherry-pick` | PRs that should be cherry-picked in the bump/release branch. These pull-requests must also be assigned to a milestone.
|
||||
`process/cherry-picked` | PRs that have been cherry-picked. This label is helpful to find PR's that have been added to release-candidates, and to update the change log
|
||||
`process/docs-cherry-pick` | PRs that should be cherry-picked in the docs branch. Only apply this label for changes that apply to the *current* release, and generic documentation fixes, such as Markdown and spelling fixes.
|
||||
`process/docs-cherry-picked` | PRs that have been cherry-picked in the docs branch
|
||||
`process/merge-to-master` | PRs that are opened directly on the bump/release branch, but also need to be merged back to "master"
|
||||
`process/merged-to-master` | PRs that have been merged back to "master"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
An opened pull request can be in 1 of 5 distinct states, for each of which there is a corresponding
|
||||
label that needs to be applied.
|
||||
|
||||
## Triage - `status/0-triage`
|
||||
### Triage - `status/0-triage`
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers are expected to triage new incoming pull requests by removing the `status/0-triage`
|
||||
label and adding the correct labels (e.g. `status/1-design-review`) before any other interaction
|
||||
|
@ -74,7 +87,7 @@ Possible transitions from this state:
|
|||
* `status/2-code-review`: e.g. trivial bugfix
|
||||
* `status/3-docs-review`: non-proposal documentation-only change
|
||||
|
||||
## Design review - `status/1-design-review`
|
||||
### Design review - `status/1-design-review`
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers are expected to comment on the design of the pull request. Review of documentation is
|
||||
expected only in the context of design validation, not for stylistic changes.
|
||||
|
@ -94,7 +107,7 @@ Possible transitions from this state:
|
|||
* `status/2-code-review`: general case
|
||||
* `status/3-docs-review`: proposals with only documentation changes
|
||||
|
||||
## Code review - `status/2-code-review`
|
||||
### Code review - `status/2-code-review`
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers are expected to review the code and ensure that it is good quality and in accordance
|
||||
with the documentation in the PR.
|
||||
|
@ -117,7 +130,7 @@ Possible transitions from this state:
|
|||
* `status/3-docs-review`: general case
|
||||
* `status/4-ready-to-merge`: change not impacting documentation
|
||||
|
||||
## Docs review - `status/3-docs-review`
|
||||
### Docs review - `status/3-docs-review`
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers are expected to review the documentation in its bigger context, ensuring consistency,
|
||||
completeness, validity, and breadth of coverage across all existing and new documentation.
|
||||
|
@ -139,7 +152,7 @@ Possible transitions from this state:
|
|||
* `status/2-code-review`: requires more code changes
|
||||
* `status/4-ready-to-merge`: general case
|
||||
|
||||
## Merge - `status/4-ready-to-merge`
|
||||
### Merge - `status/4-ready-to-merge`
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers are expected to merge this pull request as soon as possible. They can ask for a rebase
|
||||
or carry the pull request themselves.
|
||||
|
@ -158,7 +171,7 @@ to ease future classification:
|
|||
* `impact/dockerfile` signifies the patch impacted the Dockerfile syntax
|
||||
* `impact/deprecation` signifies the patch participates in deprecating an existing feature
|
||||
|
||||
## Close
|
||||
### Close
|
||||
|
||||
If a pull request is closed it is expected that sufficient justification will be provided. In
|
||||
particular, if there are alternative ways of achieving the same net result then those needs to be
|
||||
|
@ -170,7 +183,7 @@ assume that the group of maintainers is bound by mutual trust and respect, and t
|
|||
any single maintainer should be taken into consideration. Similarly, we expect maintainers to
|
||||
justify their reasoning and to accept debating.
|
||||
|
||||
# Escalation process
|
||||
## Escalation process
|
||||
|
||||
Despite the previously described reviewing process, some PR might not show any progress for various
|
||||
reasons:
|
||||
|
@ -193,3 +206,4 @@ review session. The goal of that session is to agree on one of the following out
|
|||
attention)
|
||||
* Escalate to Solomon by formulating a few specific questions on which his answers will allow
|
||||
maintainers to decide.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue