diff options
| author | MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com> | 2019-06-16 11:30:45 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com> | 2019-06-16 11:30:49 -0400 |
| commit | 2ea8ebd211edea9bf222ec3b7786f1d21d247aa7 (patch) | |
| tree | 881312edd4caa163410528eaf4868c9291d2fd5c | |
| parent | 47d981e8273804a040d71665a4cb16038d6717e1 (diff) | |
| parent | fac5ddfc5796022601af2c17fd0b158b2c465cba (diff) | |
Merge #16149: doc: Rework section on ACK in CONTRIBUTING.md
fac5ddfc57 doc: Rework section on ACK (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
`utACK` and `t(ested) ACK` are deprecated and will be removed in the next major release. Please use the more generic `ACK` and include an explanation of what was reviewed.
There was a related discussion in http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-05-code-review/ section `The author could offer a guide for review`.
ACKs for commit fac5dd:
moneyball:
ACK fac5ddfc5796022601af2c17fd0b158b2c465cba
Tree-SHA512: 29177e8d96aeba055b5cad6d99be3ca1be0c61af0fdc90f70a3136872c9ad6201a02f63fbac78b90b8a56b4c06af304f2583d52a94fdd954fdcc7ad0552b9ef8
| -rw-r--r-- | CONTRIBUTING.md | 31 |
1 files changed, 21 insertions, 10 deletions
diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index 5df99adba8..a2456f5b8c 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -237,24 +237,35 @@ request. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well as test out the patch set and opine on the technical merits of the patch. Project maintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there is consensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have been -spread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions). The following +spread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions). + +#### Conceptual Review + +A review can be a conceptual review, where the reviewer leaves a comment + * `Concept (N)ACK`, meaning "I do (not) agree in the general goal of this pull + request", + * `Approach (N)ACK`, meaning `Concept ACK`, but "I do (not) agree with the + approach of this change". + +A `NACK` needs to include a rationale why the change is not worthwhile. +NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be disregarded. + +#### Code Review + +After conceptual agreement on the change, code review can be provided. It is +starting with `ACK BRANCH_COMMIT`, where `BRANCH_COMMIT` is the top of the +topic branch. The review is followed by a description of how the reviewer did +the review. The following language is used within pull-request comments: - - (t)ACK means "I have tested the code and I agree it should be merged", involving + - "I have tested the code", involving change-specific manual testing in addition to running the unit and functional tests, and in case it is not obvious how the manual testing was done, it should be described; - - NACK means "I disagree this should be merged", and must be accompanied by - sound technical justification (or in certain cases of copyright/patent/licensing - issues, legal justification). NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be - disregarded; - - utACK means "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks + - "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged"; - - Concept ACK means "I agree in the general principle of this pull request"; - Nit refers to trivial, often non-blocking issues. -Reviewers should include the commit hash which they reviewed in their comments. - Project maintainers reserve the right to weigh the opinions of peer reviewers using common sense judgement and also may weight based on meritocracy: Those that have demonstrated a deeper commitment and understanding towards the project |