@node Introduction to contributing
@chapter Introduction to contributing
-FIXME add fluff
+This chapter presents a quick overview of ways that people can
+help LilyPond.
@menu
* Help us::
* Overview of work flow::
+* Summary for experienced developers::
* Mentors::
@end menu
@helpusNeed
-@helpusTasks
+@helpusSimple
-@helpusProjects
+@helpusAdvanced
@node Overview of work flow
@section Overview of work flow
-@cartouche
-@strong{Ultra-short summary for Unix developers}: source code is at
-@code{git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git}. Documentation is built
-with Texinfo, after pre-processing with @code{lilypond-book}.
-Send well-formed patches to @email{lilypond-devel@@gnu.org}.
-@end cartouche
+@advanced{Experienced developers should skip to
+@ref{Summary for experienced developers}.}
Git is a @emph{version control system} that tracks the history of
a program's source code. The LilyPond source code is maintained
Savannah software forge at @uref{http://git.sv.gnu.org}.
Although, since Git uses a @emph{distributed} model, technically
there is no central repository. Instead, each contributor keeps a
-complete copy of the entire repository (about 116M).
+complete copy of the entire repository (about 116MB).
Changes made within one contributor's copy of the repository can
be shared with other contributors using @emph{patches}. A patch
Git is a complex and powerful tool, but tends to be confusing at
first, particularly for users not familiar with the command line
-and/or version control systems. Contributors who don't want to
-deal with Git directly are encouraged to use the
-@command{lily-git} graphical user interface instead.
+and/or version control systems. We have created the
+@command{lily-git} graphical user interface to ease this
+difficulty.
@emph{Compiling} (@q{building}) LilyPond allows developers to see
how changes to the source code affect the program itself.
the developers' mailing list here:
@uref{http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel}.
+@warning{Contributors on Windows or MacOS X wishing to compile
+code or documentation are strongly advised to use our Ubuntu
+LilyPond Developer Remix, as discussed in @ref{Quick start}.}
+
+
+@node Summary for experienced developers
+@section Summary for experienced developers
+
+If you are already familiar with typical open-source tools, here's
+what you need to know:
+
+@itemize
+@item @strong{source repository}:
+hosted by GNU savannah.
+
+@example
+@uref{http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git}
+@end example
+
+@item @strong{environment variables}:
+many maintenance scripts, and many instructions in this guide rely on
+predefined @ref{Environment variables}.
+
+@item @strong{mailing lists}:
+given on @rweb{Contact}.
+
+@item @strong{branches}:
+
+@itemize
+@item @code{master}:
+base your work from this, but do @strong{not push} to it.
+
+@item @code{staging}:
+after a successful review (see below), push here.
+
+@item @code{translation}:
+translators should base their work from this, and also push to it.
+
+@item @code{dev/foo}:
+feel free to push any new branch name under @code{dev/}.
+
+@end itemize
+
+@item @strong{regression tests}:
+also known as @qq{regtests}; this is a collection of more than a
+thousand .ly files. We track the output of those files between
+versions.
+
+If a patch introduces any unintentional changes to the regtests,
+we will likely reject it -- make sure that you are aware and can
+explain any regtest changes. More info in @ref{Regression tests}.
+
+@item @strong{reviews}:
+after finishing work on a patch or branch:
+
+@enumerate
+@item
+upload it with our custom @code{git-cl}. In addition to uploading
+it to the google rietveld code review tool, this adds a tracker
+issue so that we don't lose your patch. The @qq{status} of your
+patch is kept on the issue tracker; see @ref{Issues}.
+
+@example
+@uref{https://github.com/gperciva/git-cl}
+@end example
+
+Your patch will be given @code{Patch-new} status. More info in
+@ref{Uploading a patch for review}.
+
+@item
+If your patch passes some automatic tests, it will be given
+@code{Patch-review} status. This generally happens within 24
+hours.
+
+@item
+After that, the patch must wait for the next @qq{patch countdown},
+which occur 3 times a week. If there are a lot of patches waiting
+for a countdown, a subset of patches are chosen randomly. When
+your patch is put on a countdown, it will be given
+@code{Patch-countdown} status.
+
+@item
+The countdown is a 48-hour period which gives other developers one
+last chance to review the patch. If no significant problems are
+found, your patch will be given @code{Patch-push} status.
+
+@item
+You may now either push it to the @code{staging} branch, or email
+your patch (created with @w{@code{git format-patch}}) to somebody
+who will push it for you.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+@advanced{Yes, this process means that most patches wait between
+60-120 hours before reaching @code{master}. This is unfortunate, but
+given our limited resources for reviewing patches and a history of
+unintended breakage in @code{master}, this is the best compromise
+we have found.}
+
+@c I don't think this is important enough to list here, but I may
+@c change my mind and/or leave a link to a later CG section.
+@ignore
+@item @strong{code style}:
+C++ code should be formatted with
+@file{scripts/auxiliar/fixcc.py}, which requires
+@url{http://astyle.sourceforge.net/, astyle 2.02}. However, we
+are not very strict about this requirement.
+
+At the moment, scheme code should be formatted @qq{like emacs does
+it}. We are working on an automated tool to simplify this step.
+However, we are not very strict about this requirement either.
+@end ignore
+
+@end itemize
+
@node Mentors
@section Mentors
that new contributors often get stuck with something that could be
solved/explained with 2 or 3 sentences from a mentor.
+@item
+If you have been working on a task much longer than was originally
+estimated, stop and ask your mentor. There may have been a
+miscommunication, or there may be some time-saving tips that could
+vastly simply your task.
+
@item
Send patches to your mentor for initial comments.
@item
Respond to questions from your contributor(s) promptly, even if
-the reponse is just @qq{sorry, I don't know} or @qq{sorry, I'm
+the response is just @qq{sorry, I don't know} or @qq{sorry, I'm
very busy for the next 3 days; I'll get back to you then}. Make
sure they feel valued.
what? Also, if you'll be unavailable for longer than usual (say,
if you normally reply within 24 hours, but you'll be at a
conference for a week), let your contributors know. Again, make
-sure thay feel valued, and that your silence (if they ask a
+sure they feel valued, and that your silence (if they ask a
question during that period) isn't their fault.
@item
-devel before being pushed).
@item
-Keep track of patches from your contributor. If you've sent a
-patch to -devel, it's your responsibility to pester people to get
-comments for it, or at very least add it to the google tracker.
+Keep track of patches from your contributor. Either upload them
+to Rietveld yourself, or help+encourage them to upload the patches
+themselves. When a patch is on Rietveld, it's your responbility
+to get comments for it, and to add a link to the patch to the
+google tracker. (tag it @qq{patch-new}, or @qq{patch-review} if
+you feel very confident in it)
-@end enumerate
+@item
+Encourage your contributor to review patches, particularly your
+own! It doesn't matter if they're not familiar with C++ / scheme
+/ build system / doc stuff -- simply going through the process is
+valuable. Besides, anybody can find a typo!
+@item
+Contact your contributor at least once a week. The goal is just
+to get a conversation started -- there's nothing wrong with simply
+copy&pasting this into an email:
+
+@example
+Hey there,
+
+How are things going? If you sent a patch and got a review, do
+you know what you need to fix? If you sent a patch but have no
+reviews yet, do you know when you will get reviews? If you are
+working on a patch, what step(s) are you working on?
+@end example
+
+
+@end enumerate
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff