On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 16:42 +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > From: Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> > > Hi, > > for years we have relied on unwritten traditions on how to review > patches. Gaining commit access has been a secret rite no-one really > knew > what was required for to ask or grant it. I would dare claim that > this > has been partially the reason for why there are so few people who > routinely review and land patches. At least I hope so, because > "unwritten" is something we can fix. > > Let's try to write down the existing conventions and criteria we use > to > review patches. These will not be rules to be followed to the letter > but > to the spirit. > > Once we have documented guidelines for quality assurance on patch > review, we can set up rules for granting commit rights. The movement > to > document commit rights requirements started in the kernel DRM > commmunity > as a tool to give out commits rights to more people and get more > people > involved and reviewing patches. I believe we would certainly want > more > people involved with Wayland and Weston, but it won't work if we > don't > also get more reviewers and committers. > > So here goes. Documenting what is expected from reviewers and commmit > rights holders should make everyone's lives easier. These patches are > my > first take on it, and build on others' as referenced. I want to > ensure > that I am replaceable. That everyone is.
And now the bus factor will considerably diminish :-). > > The guidelines will not be perfect from the start. They should we > honed > over time. > > > Thanks, > pq > > > Pekka Paalanen (2): > contributing: add review guidelines > contributing: commit rights > > CONTRIBUTING.md | 82 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+) > _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
