Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

Add GitHub Pull Request template
AbandonedPublic

Authored by dbaio on Apr 16 2022, 10:26 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 6 2024, 12:54 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 6 2024, 6:16 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 31 2023, 10:34 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 24 2023, 12:30 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Aug 28 2023, 1:45 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Aug 24 2023, 7:33 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Aug 3 2023, 9:52 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jul 7 2023, 3:43 PM
Subscribers

Details

Reviewers
debdrup
imp
emaste
Group Reviewers
doceng
Summary

This adds base information for new contributions through GitHub.

The credits information is the most requested.

Discussed with: debdrup

Diff Detail

Repository
R9 FreeBSD doc repository
Lint
No Lint Coverage
Unit
No Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 45197
Build 42085: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

dbaio created this revision.
.github/pull_request_template.md
27

We've been asking for 'Signed-off-by: ' and the contributor's covenant in src land for people that want to affirmatively say that they write it, etc.
There's been only mild pushback, so having a fallback to these sounds good to me.

33

Github isn't the primary repository for the FreeBSD project. It's one of many places that we publish our repository to promote collaboration.
One way that collaboration happens is via Pull Requests. While the project can't always ingest the patches via a pull request, they are often the most efficient way to submit small, or trivial changes to the project.

It's not a read-only mirror. If you can push something to it, you are changing it. A pull request is such a change. I think we should de-emphasize that it's not the source of truth (like I've done) and tell people that it's for wider collaboration (which it is). Just because you can't click the 'land this change' button doesn't mean this isn't useful.

36

Why do these details matter? Is there some reason to include them? Is there some action that the submitter would do differently knowing them? If so, we should focus on what that might be.

  • Remove Merge section and add Signed-off-by instructions
dbaio marked 3 inline comments as done.

I removed the additional info about the merge process, indeed not necessary, and also removed the 'read-only' repository entry.

Added Signed-off-by: instructions, this is new for me, but I have checked, and we already received a doc GitHub PR with that.

It would be nice to have this addition, since @dbaio fixed all @imp comments, can we move this forward?

@dbaio I think we can move this forward.
What do you think?

.github/pull_request_template.md
9

I would probably make this "the ususal custom" or so -- we generally want to pull requests to carry proper author info.

I am not so comfortable with this review to be honest.

When working on the GitHub doc pull requests, I found some resistance when obtaining the submitters' full names and email addresses.

So, just checking.
Is GitHub's <username+github email>format a bad thing for us?
Because if the Pull Requests are referenced accordingly, we will have the tracking part through them (GitHub/GitLab/etc).

And we already have many commits in the tree with that format (the most are imported/vendor commits)... and many of them have a full name plus a GitHub email address, and others have only a username + GitHub email address.

https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/log/?qt=author&q=users.noreply.github.com

I even accepted one on the doc tree. (sorry if it's a bad thing)
The author added a Sign-off-by tag.
https://cgit.freebsd.org/doc/commit/?id=0678947722b0c867518c3e39e5f30463a89f6093

This way will be much easier to accept contributions... we will not be the authors, and no need to reference the authors as "submitted by" or "reported by" fields.

What do you think?