Browse code

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>

Sebastiaan van Stijn authored on 2016/04/26 21:22:17
Showing 1 changed files
... ...
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
1
-Pull request reviewing process
2
-==============================
1
+# Pull request reviewing process
3 2
 
4
-# Labels
3
+## Labels
5 4
 
6 5
 Labels are carefully picked to optimize for:
7 6
 
... ...
@@ -12,11 +11,11 @@ Labels are carefully picked to optimize for:
12 12
 A pull request should only be attributed labels documented in this section: other labels that may
13 13
 exist on the repository should apply to issues.
14 14
 
15
-## DCO labels
15
+### DCO labels
16 16
 
17 17
  * `dco/no`: automatically set by a bot when one of the commits lacks proper signature
18 18
 
19
-## Status labels
19
+### Status labels
20 20
 
21 21
  * `status/0-triage`
22 22
  * `status/1-design-review`
... ...
@@ -29,7 +28,7 @@ Special status labels:
29 29
  * `status/failing-ci`: indicates that the PR in its current state fails the test suite
30 30
  * `status/needs-attention`: calls for a collective discussion during a review session
31 31
 
32
-## Specialty group labels
32
+### Specialty group labels
33 33
 
34 34
 Those labels are used to raise awareness of a particular specialty group, either because we need
35 35
 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
39 39
  * `group/security`
40 40
  * `group/windows`
41 41
 
42
-## Impact labels (apply to merged pull requests)
42
+### Impact labels (apply to merged pull requests)
43 43
 
44 44
  * `impact/api`
45 45
  * `impact/changelog`
... ...
@@ -48,12 +47,26 @@ help in reviewing the PR, or because of the potential impact of the PR on their
48 48
  * `impact/distribution`
49 49
  * `impact/dockerfile`
50 50
 
51
-# Workflow
51
+### Process labels (apply to merged pull requests)
52
+
53
+Process labels are to assist in preparing (patch) releases. These labels should only be used for pull requests.
54
+
55
+Label                           | Use for
56
+------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
57
+`process/cherry-pick`           | PRs that should be cherry-picked in the bump/release branch. These pull-requests must also be assigned to a milestone.
58
+`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
59
+`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.
60
+`process/docs-cherry-picked`    | PRs that have been cherry-picked in the docs branch
61
+`process/merge-to-master`       | PRs that are opened directly on the bump/release branch, but also need to be merged back to "master"
62
+`process/merged-to-master`      | PRs that have been merged back to "master"
63
+
64
+
65
+## Workflow
52 66
 
53 67
 An opened pull request can be in 1 of 5 distinct states, for each of which there is a corresponding
54 68
 label that needs to be applied.
55 69
 
56
-## Triage - `status/0-triage`
70
+### Triage - `status/0-triage`
57 71
 
58 72
 Maintainers are expected to triage new incoming pull requests by removing the `status/0-triage`
59 73
 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:
74 74
  * `status/2-code-review`: e.g. trivial bugfix
75 75
  * `status/3-docs-review`: non-proposal documentation-only change
76 76
 
77
-## Design review - `status/1-design-review`
77
+### Design review - `status/1-design-review`
78 78
 
79 79
 Maintainers are expected to comment on the design of the pull request.  Review of documentation is
80 80
 expected only in the context of design validation, not for stylistic changes.
... ...
@@ -94,7 +107,7 @@ Possible transitions from this state:
94 94
  * `status/2-code-review`: general case
95 95
  * `status/3-docs-review`: proposals with only documentation changes
96 96
 
97
-## Code review - `status/2-code-review`
97
+### Code review - `status/2-code-review`
98 98
 
99 99
 Maintainers are expected to review the code and ensure that it is good quality and in accordance
100 100
 with the documentation in the PR.
... ...
@@ -117,7 +130,7 @@ Possible transitions from this state:
117 117
  * `status/3-docs-review`: general case
118 118
  * `status/4-ready-to-merge`: change not impacting documentation
119 119
 
120
-## Docs review - `status/3-docs-review`
120
+### Docs review - `status/3-docs-review`
121 121
 
122 122
 Maintainers are expected to review the documentation in its bigger context, ensuring consistency,
123 123
 completeness, validity, and breadth of coverage across all existing and new documentation.
... ...
@@ -139,7 +152,7 @@ Possible transitions from this state:
139 139
  * `status/2-code-review`: requires more code changes
140 140
  * `status/4-ready-to-merge`: general case
141 141
 
142
-## Merge - `status/4-ready-to-merge`
142
+### Merge - `status/4-ready-to-merge`
143 143
 
144 144
 Maintainers are expected to merge this pull request as soon as possible. They can ask for a rebase
145 145
 or carry the pull request themselves.
... ...
@@ -158,7 +171,7 @@ to ease future classification:
158 158
  * `impact/dockerfile` signifies the patch impacted the Dockerfile syntax
159 159
  * `impact/deprecation` signifies the patch participates in deprecating an existing feature
160 160
 
161
-## Close
161
+### Close
162 162
 
163 163
 If a pull request is closed it is expected that sufficient justification will be provided. In
164 164
 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
170 170
 any single maintainer should be taken into consideration. Similarly, we expect maintainers to
171 171
 justify their reasoning and to accept debating.
172 172
 
173
-# Escalation process
173
+## Escalation process
174 174
 
175 175
 Despite the previously described reviewing process, some PR might not show any progress for various
176 176
 reasons:
... ...
@@ -193,3 +206,4 @@ review session. The goal of that session is to agree on one of the following out
193 193
    attention)
194 194
  * Escalate to Solomon by formulating a few specific questions on which his answers will allow
195 195
    maintainers to decide.
196
+