Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 2, 2023. It is now read-only.

Latest commit

 

History

History
187 lines (144 loc) · 8.45 KB

CONTRIBUTING.md

File metadata and controls

187 lines (144 loc) · 8.45 KB
Raw

Contributing

Thank you for your interest in contributing to tendermint-rs. The goal of tendermint-rs is to provide a high quality, formally verified implementation of Tendermint.

All work on the code base should be motivated by a Github Issue. Search is a good place start when looking for places to contribute. If you would like to work on an issue which already exists, please indicate so by leaving a comment. If you'd like to work on something else, open an Issue to start the discussion.

The rest of this document outlines the best practices for contributing to this repository:

Decision Making

When contributing to the project, the following process leads to the best chance of landing the changes in master.

All new contributions should start with a Github Issue. The issue helps capture the problem you're trying to solve and allows for early feedback. Once the issue is created, maintainers may request more detailed documentation be written in the form of a Request for Comment (RFC) or Architectural Decision Record (ADR).

Discussion at the RFC stage will build collective understanding of the dimensions of the problems and help structure conversations around trade-offs.

When the problem is well understood but the solution leads to large structural changes to the code base, these changes should be proposed in the form of an Architectural Decision Record (ADR). The ADR will help build consensus on an overall strategy to ensure the code base maintains coherence in the larger context. If you are not comfortable with writing an ADR, you can open a less-formal issue and the maintainers will help you turn it into an ADR.

TODO: ADR registration (eg. in an ADR registration issue)

When the problem as well as proposed solution are well understood, changes should start with a draft pull request against master. The draft signals that work is underway. When the work is ready for feedback, hitting "Ready for Review" will signal to the maintainers to take a look.

Implementation trajectories should aim to proceed where possible as a series of smaller incremental changes, in the form of small PRs that can be merged quickly. This helps manage the load for reviewers and reduces the likelihood that PRs will sit open for longer.

Contributing flow

Each stage of the process is aimed at creating feedback cycles which align contributors and maintainers to make sure:

  • Contributors don’t waste their time implementing/proposing features which won’t land in master.
  • Maintainers have the necessary context in order to support and review contributions.

Forking

If you do not have write access to the repository, your contribution should be made through a fork on Github. Fork the repository, contribute to your fork, and make a pull request back upstream.

When forking, add your fork's URL as a new git remote in your local copy of the repo. For instance, to create a fork and work on a branch of it:

  • Create the fork on GitHub, using the fork button.
  • cd to the original clone of the repo on your machine
  • git remote rename origin upstream
  • `git remote add origin [email protected]:

Now origin refers to your fork and upstream refers to this version. Now git push -u origin master to update the fork, and make pull requests against this repo.

To pull in updates from the origin repo, run

  • git fetch upstream
  • git rebase upstream/master (or whatever branch you want)

Changelog

Every non-trivial PR must update the CHANGELOG.md.

The Changelog is not a record of what Pull Requests were merged; the commit history already shows that. The Changelog is a notice to the user about how their expectations of the software should be modified. It is part of the UX of a release and is a critical user facing integration point. The Changelog must be clean, inviting, and readable, with concise, meaningful entries. Entries must be semantically meaningful to users. If a change takes multiple Pull Requests to complete, it should likely have only a single entry in the Changelog describing the net effect to the user.

When writing Changelog entries, ensure they are targeting users of the software, not fellow developers. Developers have much more context and care about more things than users do. Changelogs are for users.

Changelog structure is modeled after Tendermint Core and Hashicorp Consul. See those changelogs for examples.

Changes for a given release should be split between the five sections: Security, Breaking Changes, Features, Improvements, Bug Fixes.

Changelog entries should be formatted as follows:

- [pkg] \#xxx Some description about the change (@contributor)

Here, pkg is the part of the code that changed (typically a top-level crate, but could be /), xxx is the pull-request number, and contributor is the author/s of the change.

It's also acceptable for xxx to refer to the relevent issue number, but pull-request numbers are preferred. Note this means pull-requests should be opened first so the changelog can then be updated with the pull-request's number.

Changelog entries should be ordered alphabetically according to the pkg, and numerically according to the pull-request number.

Changes with multiple classifications should be doubly included (eg. a bug fix that is also a breaking change should be recorded under both).

Breaking changes are further subdivided according to the APIs/users they impact. Any change that effects multiple APIs/users should be recorded multiply - for instance, a change to some core protocol data structure might need to be reflected both as breaking the core protocol but also breaking any APIs where core data structures are exposed.

Pull Requests

The master development branch is master. Branch names should be prefixed with the author, eg. name/feature-x.

Pull requests are made against master and are squash merged into master.

PRs must:

  • make reference to an issue outlining the context.
  • update any relevant documentation and include tests.
  • update the changelog with a description of the change

Pull requests should aim to be small and self contained to facilitate quick review and merging. Larger change sets should be broken up across multiple PRs. Commits should be concise but informative, and moderately clean. Commits will be squashed into a single commit for the PR with all the commit messages.

Releases

Our release process is as follows:

  1. Update the changelog to reflect and summarize all changes in the release.
  2. Push this to a branch release/vX.Y.Z according to the version number of the anticipated release (e.g. release/v0.17.0) and open a draft PR.
  3. Bump all relevant versions in the codebase to the new version and push these changes to the release PR. This includes:
    1. All Cargo.toml files (making sure dependencies' versions are updated too).
    2. All crates' lib.rs files documentation references' html_root_url parameters must point to the new version.
  4. Run cargo doc --all-features --open locally to double-check that all the documentation compiles and seems up-to-date and coherent. Fix any potential issues here and push them to the release PR.
  5. Mark the PR as Ready for Review and incorporate feedback on the release.
  6. Once approved, run the release.sh script. Fix any problems that may arise during this process and push the changes to the release PR. This step requires the appropriate privileges to push crates to crates.io.
  7. Once all crates have been successfully released, merge the PR to master and tag the repo at the new version (e.g. v0.17.0).