mirror of
https://github.com/moby/moby.git
synced 2022-11-09 12:21:53 -05:00
246 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
246 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
# Pull request reviewing process
|
||
|
||
## Labels
|
||
|
||
Labels are carefully picked to optimize for:
|
||
|
||
- Readability: maintainers must immediately know the state of a PR
|
||
- Filtering simplicity: different labels represent many different aspects of
|
||
the reviewing work, and can even be targeted at different maintainers groups.
|
||
|
||
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/no`: automatically set by a bot when one of the commits lacks proper signature
|
||
|
||
### Status labels
|
||
|
||
* `status/0-triage`
|
||
* `status/1-design-review`
|
||
* `status/2-code-review`
|
||
* `status/3-docs-review`
|
||
* `status/4-ready-to-merge`
|
||
|
||
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
|
||
|
||
### Impact labels (apply to merged pull requests)
|
||
|
||
* `impact/api`
|
||
* `impact/changelog`
|
||
* `impact/cli`
|
||
* `impact/deprecation`
|
||
* `impact/distribution`
|
||
* `impact/dockerfile`
|
||
|
||
### 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`
|
||
|
||
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
|
||
with the PR. The starting label may potentially skip some steps depending on the kind of pull
|
||
request: use your best judgement.
|
||
|
||
Maintainers should perform an initial, high-level, overview of the pull request before moving it to
|
||
the next appropriate stage:
|
||
|
||
- Has DCO
|
||
- Contains sufficient justification (e.g., usecases) for the proposed change
|
||
- References the GitHub issue it fixes (if any) in the commit or the first GitHub comment
|
||
|
||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||
|
||
* Close: e.g., unresponsive contributor without DCO
|
||
* `status/1-design-review`: general case
|
||
* `status/2-code-review`: e.g. trivial bugfix
|
||
* `status/3-docs-review`: non-proposal documentation-only change
|
||
|
||
### 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.
|
||
|
||
Ideally, documentation should reflect the expected behavior of the code. No code review should
|
||
take place in this step.
|
||
|
||
There are no strict rules on the way a design is validated: we usually aim for a consensus,
|
||
although a single maintainer approval is often sufficient for obviously reasonable changes. In
|
||
general, strong disagreement expressed by any of the maintainers should not be taken lightly.
|
||
|
||
Once design is approved, a maintainer should make sure to remove this label and add the next one.
|
||
|
||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||
|
||
* Close: design rejected
|
||
* `status/2-code-review`: general case
|
||
* `status/3-docs-review`: proposals with only documentation changes
|
||
|
||
### 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.
|
||
|
||
New testcases are expected to be added. Ideally, those testcases should fail when the new code is
|
||
absent, and pass when present. The testcases should strive to test as many variants, code paths, as
|
||
possible to ensure maximum coverage.
|
||
|
||
Changes to code must be reviewed and approved (LGTM'd) by a minimum of two code maintainers. When
|
||
the author of a PR is a maintainer, he still needs the approval of two other maintainers.
|
||
|
||
Once code is approved according to the rules of the subsystem, a maintainer should make sure to
|
||
remove this label and add the next one. If documentation is absent but expected, maintainers should
|
||
ask for documentation and move to status `status/3-docs-review` for docs maintainer to follow.
|
||
|
||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||
|
||
* Close
|
||
* `status/1-design-review`: new design concerns are raised
|
||
* `status/3-docs-review`: general case
|
||
* `status/4-ready-to-merge`: change not impacting documentation
|
||
|
||
### 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.
|
||
|
||
They should ask for any editorial change that makes the documentation more consistent and easier to
|
||
understand.
|
||
|
||
The docker/docker repository only contains _reference documentation_, all
|
||
"narrative" documentation is kept in a [unified documentation
|
||
repository](https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io). Reviewers must
|
||
therefore verify which parts of the documentation need to be updated. Any
|
||
contribution that may require changing the narrative should get the
|
||
`impact/documentation` label: this is the signal for documentation maintainers
|
||
that a change will likely need to happen on the unified documentation
|
||
repository. When in doubt, it’s better to add the label and leave it to
|
||
documentation maintainers to decide whether it’s ok to skip. In all cases,
|
||
leave a comment to explain what documentation changes you think might be needed.
|
||
|
||
- If the pull request does not impact the documentation at all, the docs review
|
||
step is skipped, and the pull request is ready to merge.
|
||
- If the changes in
|
||
the pull request require changes to the reference documentation (either
|
||
command-line reference, or API reference), those changes must be included as
|
||
part of the pull request and will be reviewed now. Keep in mind that the
|
||
narrative documentation may contain output examples of commands, so may need
|
||
to be updated as well, in which case the `impact/documentation` label must
|
||
be applied.
|
||
- If the PR has the `impact/documentation` label, merging is delayed until a
|
||
documentation maintainer acknowledges that a corresponding documentation PR
|
||
(or issue) is opened on the documentation repository. Once a documentation
|
||
maintainer acknowledges the change, she/he will move the PR to `status/4-merge`
|
||
for a code maintainer to push the green button.
|
||
|
||
Changes and additions to docs must be reviewed and approved (LGTM'd) by a minimum of two docs
|
||
sub-project maintainers. If the docs change originates with a docs maintainer, only one additional
|
||
LGTM is required (since we assume a docs maintainer approves of their own PR).
|
||
|
||
Once documentation is approved, a maintainer should make sure to remove this label and
|
||
add the next one.
|
||
|
||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||
|
||
* Close
|
||
* `status/1-design-review`: new design concerns are raised
|
||
* `status/2-code-review`: requires more code changes
|
||
* `status/4-ready-to-merge`: general case
|
||
|
||
### 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.
|
||
|
||
Possible transitions from this state:
|
||
|
||
* Merge: general case
|
||
* Close: carry PR
|
||
|
||
After merging a pull request, the maintainer should consider applying one or multiple impact labels
|
||
to ease future classification:
|
||
|
||
* `impact/api` signifies the patch impacted the Engine API
|
||
* `impact/changelog` signifies the change is significant enough to make it in the changelog
|
||
* `impact/cli` signifies the patch impacted a CLI command
|
||
* `impact/dockerfile` signifies the patch impacted the Dockerfile syntax
|
||
* `impact/deprecation` signifies the patch participates in deprecating an existing feature
|
||
|
||
### 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
|
||
spelled out. If the pull request is trying to solve a use case that is not one that we (as a
|
||
community) want to support then a justification for why should be provided.
|
||
|
||
The number of maintainers it takes to decide and close a PR is deliberately left unspecified. We
|
||
assume that the group of maintainers is bound by mutual trust and respect, and that opposition from
|
||
any single maintainer should be taken into consideration. Similarly, we expect maintainers to
|
||
justify their reasoning and to accept debating.
|
||
|
||
## Escalation process
|
||
|
||
Despite the previously described reviewing process, some PR might not show any progress for various
|
||
reasons:
|
||
|
||
- No strong opinion for or against the proposed patch
|
||
- Debates about the proper way to solve the problem at hand
|
||
- Lack of consensus
|
||
- ...
|
||
|
||
All these will eventually lead to stalled PR, where no apparent progress is made across several
|
||
weeks, or even months.
|
||
|
||
Maintainers should use their best judgement and apply the `status/needs-attention` label. It must
|
||
be used sparingly, as each PR with such label will be discussed by a group of maintainers during a
|
||
review session. The goal of that session is to agree on one of the following outcomes for the PR:
|
||
|
||
* Close, explaining the rationale for not pursuing further
|
||
* Continue, either by pushing the PR further in the workflow, or by deciding to carry the patch
|
||
(ideally, a maintainer should be immediately assigned to make sure that the PR keeps continued
|
||
attention)
|
||
* Escalate to Solomon by formulating a few specific questions on which his answers will allow
|
||
maintainers to decide.
|
||
|
||
## Milestones
|
||
|
||
Typically, every merged pull request get shipped naturally with the next release cut from the
|
||
`master` branch (either the next minor or major version, as indicated by the
|
||
[`VERSION`](https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/VERSION) file at the root of the
|
||
repository). However, the time-based nature of the release process provides no guarantee that a
|
||
given pull request will get merged in time. In other words, all open pull requests are implicitly
|
||
considered part of the next minor or major release milestone, and this won't be materialized on
|
||
GitHub.
|
||
|
||
A merged pull request must be attached to the milestone corresponding to the release in which it
|
||
will be shipped: this is both useful for tracking, and to help the release manager with the
|
||
changelog generation.
|
||
|
||
An open pull request may exceptionally get attached to a milestone to express a particular intent to
|
||
get it merged in time for that release. This may for example be the case for an important feature to
|
||
be included in a minor release, or a critical bugfix to be included in a patch release.
|
||
|
||
Finally, and as documented by the [`PATCH-RELEASES.md`](PATCH-RELEASES.md) process, the existence of
|
||
a milestone is not a guarantee that a release will happen, as some milestones will be created purely
|
||
for the purpose of bookkeeping
|