On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:26 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me start by stating a few [obvious] objectives: > Keep things simple for those NuttX users who prefer to work with a zip’d > release. > provide best-practice tools and workflow to maximize productivity of > developers living on > the bleeding edge. > define a disciplined process that insures the continued quality of the > project. > > As we fill in the details, this discussion will naturally blend in > specifics of implementation > and tools — I expect “git” might come up in the discussions ;) At this point, much has been written in this and other threads. Now I recommend that we should have a Confluence page where the information can be edited to make it: * Plain English * Flow well * Readable * Coherent * Specific * Not assume knowledge * In one easy to find place I say "I recommend that we should" instead of just going ahead and creating that Confluence page because I want to ensure that this happens with community agreement. Rationale for creating the document: I don't want or expect anyone to memorize our workflow, nor to go digging all over the place to piece together what it is. I want it documented clearly so that veteran contributors and total newbies alike will be able to understand exactly what to do. I also want this documented for purpose of on-boarding future committers and so that committers will know what is expected of them whenever they commit. And furthermore I want it in a clear document that we can officially vote on to make it our "blessed" workflow, until such time as we decide to make changes and vote to update the "blessed" process. The document should flow in a manner that makes information easy to find. I suggest to organize it as follows: 1. Overview. This section defines "WHAT" the steps of the workflow are. This is a simple bulleted or numbered list. No rationale, no git jargon, no DevOps nonsense, just clear plain English. Where is the code. What basic steps take place to apply changes to it. Greg literally wrote this list a few emails ago and it contains 80% of what should be in that list. It needs minimal improvement. 2. How To Submit Changes For Review. This section defines the "HOW" of the workflow for ANYONE who wants to get a change into NuttX, whether committer or not. Committers do not get to bypass this process. This section should document: How to obtain a copy of the code. What steps to take before beginning work on a change. Once you've made your change and want to contribute it, what steps to take to turn it into a PR or patch. How to submit the PR or patch to us? We should NOT assume knowledge. If a step requires using git, then give the exact git command followed by an explanation of every element of that command, so that anyone who knows how to enter a command in a terminal with zero prior knowledge of git will be able to understand exactly how to issue that git command and exactly what it will do. I want to make it straightforward and easy for a HARDWARE engineer to be able to submit changes. 3. Criteria For Acceptance. This section defines what sorts of things committers will examine and verify before allowing changes into NuttX. First, the universal requirements that apply to all parts of NuttX. This includes INVIOLABLES, coding standard, rules that govern clean architecture, POSIX compliance, not breaking the build, etc. The word INVIOLABLES should be a link to that file. After the universal requirements, there should be requirements by area. Requirements for boards. Requirements for drivers. Requirements for the scheduler. Requirements for architectural support. Etc. All of the checks in this section can be performed manually by a committer for now. This section should be documented clearly and specifically enough that it can directly be used as the specification of automated checks to implement in a CI system. 4. Reference For Committers. This section explains to committers how to carry out all the steps to process a proposed change from start to finish. "Start" means a patch or a PR arrived. If a patch, how to convert it into a PR. "Finish" can mean either applying the change to master, or reject the change / send it back to the submitter for additional work. And all steps in between. This section (item #4) is a continuation of item #2. Item #2 explained how anyone submits a proposed change for review. Now we explain what happens next. Like item #2, we should NOT assume knowledge. If a step requires using git, then give the exact git command followed by an explanation of every element of that command. This is not excessive. This will help on-boarding of new committers as well as help veteran committers avoid mistakes. 5. Rationale. This section explains the "WHY" behind all of the above. So that people won't cut an inch off each end of a ham without knowing why. Cheers, Nathan
