X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=Documentation%2Fcontributor%2Fintroduction.itexi;h=b6530b4ffdcdfa99a3e5fe2520034a58320e71ae;hb=01df8ad908c92687d0c352e5ad5f067e52809423;hp=c104cee17551acb2790d8a512c9bb84a1d5e63ec;hpb=ace881437adc0146a62cffa3255ac1ca169bd054;p=lilypond.git diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi index c104cee175..b6530b4ffd 100644 --- a/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi +++ b/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ help LilyPond. @menu * Help us:: * Overview of work flow:: +* Summary for experienced developers:: * Mentors:: @end menu @@ -20,20 +21,16 @@ help LilyPond. @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 @@ -52,7 +49,7 @@ The @q{official} LilyPond Git repository is hosted by the GNU 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 @@ -97,8 +94,119 @@ 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 lilybuntu, as -discussed in @ref{Quick start}.} +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 @@ -124,6 +232,12 @@ They might not be able to help you with all problems, but we find 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. @@ -176,9 +290,33 @@ for docs and translations; code patches should almost always go to -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) + +@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