Document Source Management Team policies

[imp]

Summary

Fill previously empty srcmgr/policies.adoc placeholder with actual
policies documented from srcmgr practice: code review expectations,
compilation requirements, testing expectations, main branch soak
time, commit access principles, bit reclamation timeline, and stable
branch rules.

Update srcmgr/_index.adoc to reflect policies are now complete.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Haiku 4.5 <[e-mail]>

[emaste]

website/content/en/srcmgr/policies.adoc

14 ↗

(On Diff #189408)

"Pre-commit code review"?

18 ↗

(On Diff #189408)

We have a discussion of phab vs github in CONTRIBUTING.md as well. I think listing these as preferred/acceptable makes sense here, but we might want to revisit CONTRIBUTING and clarify it a bit.

My take is:

Use Phabricator if any of the following are true:

• you are a FreeBSD committer
• you're working closely with one or more FreeBSD committers on some body of work (i.e., you know who is going to land the change)
• the change is large or controversial

Use GitHub if both are true:

• you already have a GitHub account (and probably not a Phabricator account)
• the change is straightforward

44 ↗

(On Diff #189408)

We haven't really codified this before?

53 ↗

(On Diff #189408)

[imp]

Thanks for the review ed! Much appreciated.

website/content/en/srcmgr/policies.adoc

14 ↗

(On Diff #189408)

Yes. That's a stronger, and better, statement.

18 ↗

(On Diff #189408)

I'll bring this in.
There's one other time, though, and that's to test with github's CI. Is that too much detail?

44 ↗

(On Diff #189408)

It's in the cross repo policy I just did. I wasn't sure if we needed it here or not. Some of this work is organizational vs writing stuff down we do, but haven't documented.

53 ↗

(On Diff #189408)

better framing! Thanks!

[imp]

Move to handbook