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>
| ... | ... |
@@ -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 |
+ |