Hi all, >From a discussion in IRC I realized we should probably formalize the convention we've been following for accepting commits into aurora.
Here's my take at formalizing the informal convention, please comment inline: In order to facilitate high-quality code contributions, all changes should be reviewed and signed off by at least one committer (if a committer submits a review it should be reviewed by at least one *other* committer). Review requests should be addressed to *specific* committers who are familiar with the codebase being changed. It is each committer's responsibility to promptly address all review requests addressed to them, either by signing off, providing feedback, or explicitly declining to review the change. Changes should not be committed until all reviewers sign off or explicitly decline to review a change. Reviews for code changes should generally have associated test coverage and attached test output (at least a short description of testing done). Small patches are preferred over large ones when possible as they are easier to review, but patches should be atomic such that tests always pass on master. Nontrivial changes should generally have an associated entry in the issue tracker. In order to minimize process overhead and encourage community contributions trivial changes may be accepted by a single committer. Trivial changes include small documentation improvements (including in code comments), typos in code and scripts, and anything that in the discretion of the committer doesn't warrant additional review (code changes must still pass relevant tests). The above are guidelines - committers still have discretion to unilaterally sign-off on and accept any patch on a case-by-case basis, but they are expected to follow the above guidelines.
