Size: 4829
Comment: s/reviewer/committer
|
← Revision 44 as of 2022-10-12 15:53:35 ⇥
Size: 3873
Comment:
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 14: | Line 14: |
* All reviews happen on MailingLists#The_Mercurial-Devel_list | * Reviews happen on MailingLists#The_Mercurial-Devel_list and [[https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/|Phabricator]] |
Line 16: | Line 16: |
* Contributors follow the ContributingChanges and send their patch(es) to the list (hopefully using the PatchbombExtension) | * Contributors follow the ContributingChanges and send their patch(es) to the list |
Line 18: | Line 18: |
* Reviews are just email replies to the emailed patch | * Reviews are just email replies to the emailed patch, or Phabricator comments |
Line 20: | Line 20: |
* ``Everyone`` is welcome to do review. | * ``Everyone`` is welcome to do review |
Line 25: | Line 25: |
Quick reminder of important things: * commit message format, * Patch does one and only one thing, * Change is tested * Documentation augmented and updated * (all the other things in the list) |
|
Line 44: | Line 32: |
=== For email patches === |
|
Line 46: | Line 36: |
If everything sounds good, reply to the email too. Just state it looks good to you in your reply. To make your pre-review even more useful, don't forget to go to [[http://patchwork.serpentine.com/project/hg/list/|Patchwork]] and mark the patches as "Pre-Reviewed". | If everything sounds good, reply to the email too. Just state it looks good to you in your reply. === For Phabricator patches === Comment on the web page. Feel free to use "Accept Revision" action even if you're not a core reviewer. If you want to comment without using a browser, follow steps on [[Phabricator]] and use "hg phabupdate". |
Line 90: | Line 84: |
* Update [[http://patchwork.serpentine.com/project/hg/list/|Patchwork]] once you have pushed == Patchwork States == ||'''New''' || || ||'''Pre-Reviewed''' ||non-committer have "lgtm", but still needs someone to look at it || ||'''Under Review''' || || ||'''2nd Review Requested'''||committer looked at it, but second pair of eyes requested || ||'''Accepted''' || || ||'''Changes Requested''' ||changes requested by committer, needs new version || ||'''Rejected''' || || ||'''RFC''' ||an RFC patch, needs more reviews (?) || ||'''Superseded''' ||new version available || ||'''Not Applicable''' ||not a patch (?) || ||'''Deferred''' ||? || |
|
Line 110: | Line 87: |
* [[http://patchwork.serpentine.com/project/hg/list/|Patchwork]] ([[http://hgpatches.appspot.com/?days=30|backlog plot]]) | * [[https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/|Phabricator]] |
Line 113: | Line 90: |
* [[http://42.netv6.net/reviewtools/|Collection of script]] |
|
Line 125: | Line 100: |
* Pierre-Yves David | |
Line 129: | Line 103: |
* Bryan O'Sullivan | |
Line 131: | Line 104: |
* Gregory Szorc * Sean Farley * RyanMcElroy * Pulkit Goyal |
|
Note:
This page is primarily intended for developers of Mercurial.
Patch Review Process
This page explains the Mercurial patch review process and how (anyone) can help.
Contents
1. Generic Fact
Reviews happen on MailingLists#The_Mercurial-Devel_list and Phabricator
Contributors follow the ContributingChanges and send their patch(es) to the list
- Reviews are just email replies to the emailed patch, or Phabricator comments
Everyone is welcome to do review
2. Simple Review Checklist
The patch should conform to the ContributingChanges bullet list.
- You understand the change
- The change seems correct
- The change seems efficient
2.1. For email patches
If any concerns raised, reply to the email asking questions.
If everything sounds good, reply to the email too. Just state it looks good to you in your reply.
2.2. For Phabricator patches
Comment on the web page. Feel free to use "Accept Revision" action even if you're not a core reviewer. If you want to comment without using a browser, follow steps on Phabricator and use "hg phabupdate".
3. Things we commonly miss
(we should probably move these recommendation in other page and just link to them)
Good 'topic'. (The part is the one before colon in the first line topic: short desc). It is unvaluable to sort thing out when scanning through commit, especially when building a release changelog. A common mistake is to pick a very general work like "commands".
Config section. All debatable/temporary/unsure-we-want-this config should go to the [experimental] config section. For other option, try to avoid adding a new section if we can't foresee more than one option in it and another pre-existing section would be a good fit.
- Deprecation warning, if a major internal API get killed, encourage the preservation of the old version for 1 version with a deprecation warning (if it is easy to implement). This makes third party extensions maintainer life easier.
4. Accepters Review Checklist
Some people are blessed to accept patches and push them to a repo where Matt Mackall ultimately pulls from.
Here is another check list for them
- Run check code on all patches
- Run the whole test suites
- Reply to the list saying that you took care of the patch
you can get the patches files directly from http://hgpatches.durin42.com/patches/<node> Appropriate hg alias would be:
[alias] getpatch=import --partial --obsolete http://hgpatches.durin42.com/patches/$1
- Make sure you created obsolescence marker between the node in the patch and the one you created, e.g.
hg import --partial --obsolete <patches>:
use the drophack extension if you need to drop a changeset you queued
Rebase your queue on top of main's @
Move @ with the changeset you pushed.
5. Review Tooling
Various data collection http://review.octopoid.net/ (STALED)
Matt Mackall Inbox Metrix (nb email, nb patches, oldest email (in day)) and Content.
6. The Committers Group
Current list with push access to the hg-committed repository
- Kevin Bullock
- Augie Fackler
- Matt Mackall
- Yuya Nishihara
- Martin von Zweigbergk
- Gregory Szorc
- Sean Farley
- Pulkit Goyal