Committing Guidelines
(This page is just a brain dump for xb95 at present, it should be cleaned up, if someone feels up to the task...)
Basics of Committing
A few people have/are/will be given commit access. Generally it's an invite-only sort of thing, if the existing pool of committers decide that you are familiar enough with the code and generally produce quality patches, you will be offered a commit access.
In general, the responsibilities of someone with commit are to make sure that:
- All code being committed has been reviewed, either by the committer or by a known reviewer.
- All code being committed is either a bug fix for an existing feature, or if it's a new feature, the feature has been approved by the people that do feature approvals.
- The committer must be completely comfortable with the code in question, and comfortable that it will not eat data, destroy lives, or harm the site.
It is worth remembering that these are guidelines. If possible, follow them. But realistically speaking, especially when we're up against an aggressive launch schedule, they may be bent in some cases. (Which we will hopefully make up for by having many beta testers and quality coders!)
What To Commit
Picking something to commit is generally pretty straightforward. Either you can troll Bugzilla for patches that are flagged "review+ commit?" and then spot-check and commit those, or you can look for "review?" patches and take on the review yourself. Obviously we need as many reviewers as we can get, so the latter is highly encouraged!
Performing a quality review is outside the scope of this document. For now, it is assumed that if you review something, you follow the guidelines on how to do a good review. (Which should be linked here...)
You should make sure that you only commit things you are comfortable having your name on. If you commit something you are going to be one of the go-to people for any questions on "what exactly is that" and "why do we have that", and probably some others.
Mechanics of Committing
MOAR BRB
