diff options
author | Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> | 2023-08-09 11:39:35 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> | 2023-08-30 15:54:59 +0100 |
commit | 80d1c907e6b32f717eef9cd00733f582864e2e91 (patch) | |
tree | b3982295c1b63b2fd2310dc35e5b4ab5e1eb5672 | |
parent | 63c0a2cc7710af4961d23f029187805de921aecc (diff) | |
download | poky-80d1c907e6b32f717eef9cd00733f582864e2e91.tar.gz |
contributor-guide: add section about why we use mailing lists
(From yocto-docs rev: dda13405221102b66b0e08bee3004d0ce1c0c000)
Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
-rw-r--r-- | documentation/contributor-guide/submit-change.rst | 50 |
1 files changed, 45 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/submit-change.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/submit-change.rst index 2555767102..1327b2854c 100644 --- a/documentation/contributor-guide/submit-change.rst +++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/submit-change.rst | |||
@@ -8,14 +8,54 @@ Because the system is extremely configurable and flexible, we recognize | |||
8 | that developers will want to extend, configure or optimize it for their | 8 | that developers will want to extend, configure or optimize it for their |
9 | specific uses. | 9 | specific uses. |
10 | 10 | ||
11 | .. _ref-why-mailing-lists: | ||
12 | |||
13 | Contributing through mailing lists --- Why not using web-based workflows? | ||
14 | ========================================================================= | ||
15 | |||
16 | Both Yocto Project and OpenEmbedded have many key components that are | ||
17 | maintained by patches being submitted on mailing lists. We appreciate this | ||
18 | approach does look a little old fashioned when other workflows are available | ||
19 | through web technology such as GitHub, GitLab and others. Since we are often | ||
20 | asked this question, we’ve decided to document the reasons for using mailing | ||
21 | lists. | ||
22 | |||
23 | One significant factor is that we value peer review. When a change is proposed | ||
24 | to many of the core pieces of the project, it helps to have many eyes of review | ||
25 | go over them. Whilst there is ultimately one maintainer who needs to make the | ||
26 | final call on accepting or rejecting a patch, the review is made by many eyes | ||
27 | and the exact people reviewing it are likely unknown to the maintainer. It is | ||
28 | often the surprise reviewer that catches the most interesting issues! | ||
29 | |||
30 | This is in contrast to the "GitHub" style workflow where either just a | ||
31 | maintainer makes that review, or review is specifically requested from | ||
32 | nominated people. We believe there is significant value added to the codebase | ||
33 | by this peer review and that moving away from mailing lists would be to the | ||
34 | detriment of our code. | ||
35 | |||
36 | We also need to acknowledge that many of our developers are used to this | ||
37 | mailing list workflow and have worked with it for years, with tools and | ||
38 | processes built around it. Changing away from this would result in a loss | ||
39 | of key people from the project, which would again be to its detriment. | ||
40 | |||
41 | The projects are acutely aware that potential new contributors find the | ||
42 | mailing list approach off-putting and would prefer a web-based GUI. | ||
43 | Since we don’t believe that can work for us, the project is aiming to ensure | ||
44 | `patchwork <https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/>`__ is available to help track | ||
45 | patch status and also looking at how tooling can provide more feedback to users | ||
46 | about patch status. We are looking at tools such as ``patchtest`` to | ||
47 | test user contributions before they hit the mailing lists and also at better | ||
48 | documenting how to use such workflows since we recognise that whilst this was | ||
49 | common knowledge a decade ago, it might not be as familiar now. | ||
50 | |||
11 | Finding a Suitable Mailing List | 51 | Finding a Suitable Mailing List |
12 | =============================== | 52 | =============================== |
13 | 53 | ||
14 | The Yocto Project uses a mailing list and a patch-based workflow that is | 54 | The Yocto Project and OpenEmbedded use a mailing list and a patch-based |
15 | similar to the Linux kernel but contains important differences. In | 55 | workflow that is similar to the Linux kernel but contains important |
16 | general, there is a mailing list through which you can submit patches. You | 56 | differences. In general, there is a mailing list through which you can submit |
17 | should send patches to the appropriate mailing list so that they can be | 57 | patches. You should send patches to the appropriate mailing list so that they |
18 | reviewed and merged by the appropriate maintainer. The specific mailing | 58 | can be reviewed and merged by the appropriate maintainer. The specific mailing |
19 | list you need to use depends on the location of the code you are | 59 | list you need to use depends on the location of the code you are |
20 | changing. Each component (e.g. layer) should have a ``README`` file that | 60 | changing. Each component (e.g. layer) should have a ``README`` file that |
21 | indicates where to send the changes and which process to follow. | 61 | indicates where to send the changes and which process to follow. |