Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 5, 2023. It is now read-only.

Commit acbad53

Browse files
dolphmarkstur
authored andcommitted
Revise maintainers documentation
1 parent a380156 commit acbad53

File tree

1 file changed

+42
-47
lines changed

1 file changed

+42
-47
lines changed

MAINTAINERS.md

Lines changed: 42 additions & 47 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,74 +1,69 @@
1-
## Maintainers Guide
1+
# Maintainers Guide
22

3-
This guide is intended for maintainers anybody with commit access to one or
4-
more Developer Journey repositories.
3+
This guide is intended for maintainers - anybody with commit access to one or
4+
more Code Pattern repositories.
55

6-
## Methodology:
6+
## Methodology
77

8-
A master branch. This branch MUST be releasable at all times. Commits and
9-
merges against this branch MUST contain only bugfixes and/or security fixes.
10-
Maintenance releases are tagged against master.
11-
12-
A develop branch. This branch contains your proposed changes.
8+
This repository does not have a traditional release management cycle, but
9+
should instead be maintained as as a useful, working, and polished reference at
10+
all times. While all work can therefore be focused on the master branch, the
11+
quality of this branch should never be compromised.
1312

1413
The remainder of this document details how to merge pull requests to the
1514
repositories.
1615

1716
## Merge approval
1817

19-
The project maintainers use LGTM (Looks Good To Me) in comments on the code
20-
review to indicate acceptance. A change requires LGTMs from two of the members
21-
of the [watson-journey-dev-admins](https://github.com/orgs/IBM/teams/watson-journey-dev-admins)
22-
team. If the code is written by a member, the change only requires one more
23-
LGTM.
18+
The project maintainers use LGTM (Looks Good To Me) in comments on the pull
19+
request to indicate acceptance prior to merging. A change requires LGTMs from
20+
two project maintainers. If the code is written by a maintainer, the change
21+
only requires one additional LGTM.
2422

2523
## Reviewing Pull Requests
2624

2725
We recommend reviewing pull requests directly within GitHub. This allows a
2826
public commentary on changes, providing transparency for all users. When
29-
providing feedback be civil, courteous, and kind. Disagreement is fine, so
30-
long as the discourse is carried out politely. If we see a record of uncivil
31-
or abusive comments, we will revoke your commit privileges and invite you to
32-
leave the project.
27+
providing feedback be civil, courteous, and kind. Disagreement is fine, so long
28+
as the discourse is carried out politely. If we see a record of uncivil or
29+
abusive comments, we will revoke your commit privileges and invite you to leave
30+
the project.
3331

3432
During your review, consider the following points:
3533

36-
### Does the change have impact?
37-
38-
While fixing typos is nice as it adds to the overall quality of the project,
39-
merging a typo fix at a time can be a waste of effort.
40-
(Merging many typo fixes because somebody reviewed the entire component,
41-
however, is useful!) Other examples to be wary of:
34+
### Does the change have positive impact?
4235

43-
Changes in variable names. Ask whether or not the change will make
44-
understanding the code easier, or if it could simply a personal preference
45-
on the part of the author.
36+
Some proposed changes may not represent a positive impact to the project. Ask
37+
whether or not the change will make understanding the code easier, or if it
38+
could simply be a personal preference on the part of the author (see
39+
[bikeshedding](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding)).
4640

47-
Essentially: feel free to close issues that do not have impact.
41+
Pull requests that do not have a clear positive impact should be closed without
42+
merging.
4843

4944
### Do the changes make sense?
5045

51-
If you do not understand what the changes are or what they accomplish,
52-
ask the author for clarification. Ask the author to add comments and/or
53-
clarify test case names to make the intentions clear.
46+
If you do not understand what the changes are or what they accomplish, ask the
47+
author for clarification. Ask the author to add comments and/or clarify test
48+
case names to make the intentions clear.
5449

55-
At times, such clarification will reveal that the author may not be using
56-
the code correctly, or is unaware of features that accommodate their needs.
57-
If you feel this is the case, work up a code sample that would address the
58-
issue for them, and feel free to close the issue once they confirm.
50+
At times, such clarification will reveal that the author may not be using the
51+
code correctly, or is unaware of features that accommodate their needs. If you
52+
feel this is the case, work up a code sample that would address the pull
53+
request for them, and feel free to close the pull request once they confirm.
5954

60-
### Is this a new feature? If so:
55+
### Does the change introduce a new feature?
6156

62-
Does the issue contain narrative indicating the need for the feature? If not,
63-
ask them to provide that information. Since the issue will be linked in the
64-
changelog, this will often be a user's first introduction to it.
57+
For any given pull request, ask yourself "is this a new feature?" If so, does
58+
the pull request (or associated issue) contain narrative indicating the need
59+
for the feature? If not, ask them to provide that information.
6560

6661
Are new unit tests in place that test all new behaviors introduced? If not, do
67-
not merge the feature until they are!
68-
Is documentation in place for the new feature? (See the documentation
69-
guidelines). If not do not merge the feature until it is!
70-
Is the feature necessary for general use cases? Try and keep the scope of any
71-
given component narrow. If a proposed feature does not fit that scope,
72-
recommend to the user that they maintain the feature on their own, and close
73-
the request. You may also recommend that they see if the feature gains traction
74-
amongst other users, and suggest they re-submit when they can show such support.
62+
not merge the feature until they are! Is documentation in place for the new
63+
feature? (See the documentation guidelines). If not do not merge the feature
64+
until it is! Is the feature necessary for general use cases? Try and keep the
65+
scope of any given component narrow. If a proposed feature does not fit that
66+
scope, recommend to the user that they maintain the feature on their own, and
67+
close the request. You may also recommend that they see if the feature gains
68+
traction among other users, and suggest they re-submit when they can show such
69+
support.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)