aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to '.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md')
-rw-r--r--.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md31
1 files changed, 31 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..00d5478c4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
+immediately.
+
+Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
+Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
+significantly.
+
+* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always welcome.
+* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see `src/test/`) or
+ functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests cover
+ modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new tests
+ should accompany the change.
+* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or an
+ explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the bug
+ was fixed.
+* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope issues.
+ If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should first
+ consider building the system outside of Bitcoin Core, if possible.
+* Refactoring changes are only accepted if they are required for a feature or
+ bug fix or otherwise improve developer experience significantly. For example,
+ most "code style" refactoring changes require a thorough explanation why they
+ are useful, what downsides they have and why they *significantly* improve
+ developer experience or avoid serious programming bugs. Note that code style
+ is often a subjective matter. Unless they are explicitly mentioned to be
+ preferred in the [developer notes](/doc/developer-notes.md), stylistic code
+ changes are usually rejected.
+
+Bitcoin Core has a thorough review process and even the most trivial change
+needs to pass a lot of eyes and requires non-zero or even substantial time
+effort to review. There is a huge lack of active reviewers on the project, so
+patches often sit for a long time.