From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81393C43334 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 07:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894788448C; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:06:37 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=denx.de; s=phobos-20191101; t=1657263997; bh=KBCASWtqf0SNOdPBjVIq5SosubnaSGi/67f4FZtyz+A=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=Lxwwue9RjmH4Fu/UIUMrdknwSlZy4/QXnzWr7RRIx2PVte1meJVWIcFOs4DyYng3M ZNT7R4/sB+XNgUypUIM2jRJ8fodjwQinHgRBR93xFoHH0VQ82u+2bD/qkh5FqpFn5I nuEP+/kBqe7QqlNDwuh6uvESFa4sB9XKT2a7BI4tHOvGlc4lKjDZ7CUVAlYss2xlrb iei0qtmJa1pFpGDZbKxbtrROXuEaJ+RZZXrkejQVRnJeogIR4QhM8crWeqhPlCvu+J 7OcUS3XUlP74B8bkATe+VHjW9Sc/KUGI0XNoVtQ4wKFRbVSAaEC0I8K0uxcuPtYUbW jB/bQWG3ZwW6Q== Received: from [10.88.0.66] (dslb-084-063-248-128.084.063.pools.vodafone-ip.de [84.63.248.128]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ch@denx.de) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62B0C8444D; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:06:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=denx.de; s=phobos-20191101; t=1657263996; bh=KBCASWtqf0SNOdPBjVIq5SosubnaSGi/67f4FZtyz+A=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=bYFPiGHOExMMrtZm6c0i0W/GrwNuhtw8dJfSkv9nSu9YFDSH9+PuKYIY4PyjulA2N syneRLqlg8zm4H9O89NePbout1IE3YKa5V5AxzJkUMxIKIJuEmfCfX9OgqSEDTD6b2 SDNevxrYAjqE18Hj1lTCyCnn7aiVwiNZkEpSAod/Ek32CJVb+ciX8EhUsqHviE7Yhs whFh6Q9y57UCaZh5MrlugT4RnHjzRcEDKt2D81RM5a1XqK0dgvrhZiz+6UYFL8hxGg PNVO8YUaursqrZQ4YxRXxGRezGE0eIPPfF9BCMKKpnPt46vsfjCKLt0m4FPHBWNJDT h8J0PlVblu7kQ== Message-ID: <7235181d-1379-c041-24cf-d350649337f5@denx.de> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:06:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] doc: Migrate Process wiki page to sphinx Content-Language: en-US To: Tom Rini , u-boot@lists.denx.de References: <20220627171722.1153337-1-trini@konsulko.com> <20220627171722.1153337-5-trini@konsulko.com> From: Claudius Heine Organization: Denx Software Engineering In-Reply-To: <20220627171722.1153337-5-trini@konsulko.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.6 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean Hi Tom, On 2022-06-27 19:17, Tom Rini wrote: > Move the current Process wiki page to doc/develop/process.rst. The > changes here are for formatting or slight rewording so that it reads > well when linking to other sphinx documents. > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini > --- > doc/develop/index.rst | 1 + > doc/develop/process.rst | 182 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 183 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 doc/develop/process.rst > > diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst > index c0f4f0ba413a..eab00a55382a 100644 > --- a/doc/develop/index.rst > +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ General > > codingstyle > designprinciples > + process > > Implementation > -------------- > diff --git a/doc/develop/process.rst b/doc/develop/process.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..dd279fb9eff1 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/doc/develop/process.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+: > + > +U-Boot Development Process > +========================== > + > +Management Summary > +------------------ > + > +* Development happens in Release Cycles of 3 months. > +* The first 2 weeks are called Merge Window, which is followed by a > + Stabilization Period. > +* Patches with new code get only accepted while the Merge Window is open. > +* A patch that is generally in good shape and that was submitted while the > + Merge Window was open is eligible to go into the upcoming release, even if > + changes and resubmits are needed. > +* During the Stabilization Period, only patches that contain bug fixes get > + applied. > + > +Phases of the Development Process > +--------------------------------- > + > +U-Boot development takes place in `Release Cycles > +`_. A Release Cycle lasts > +normally for three months. > + > +The first two weeks of each Release Cycle are called *Merge Window*. > + > +It is followed by a *Stabilization Period*. > + > +The end of a Release Cycle is marked by the release of a new U-Boot version. > + > +Merge Window > +------------ > + > +The Merge Window is the period when new patches get submitted > +(and hopefully accepted) for inclusion into U-Boot mainline. > + > +This is the only time when new code (like support for new processors or new > +boards, or other new features or reorganization of code) is accepted. > + > +Twilight Time > +------------- > + > +Usually patches do not get accepted as they are - the peer review that takes > +place will usually require changes and resubmits of the patches before they > +are considered to be ripe for inclusion into mainline. > + > +Also, the review often happens not immediately after a patch was submitted, > +but only when somebody (usually the responsible custodian) finds time to do > +this. > + > +In the result, the final version of such patches gets submitted after the > +merge window has been closed. > + > +It is current practice in U-Boot that such patches are eligible to go into the > +upcoming release. > + > +In the result, the release of the ``"-rc1"`` version does not immediately follow > +the closing of the Merge Window. > + > +Stabilization Period > +-------------------- > + > +During the Stabilization Period only patches containing bug fixes get > +applied. > + > +Corner Cases > +------------ > + > +Sometimes it is not clear if a patch contains a bug fix or not. > +For example, changes that remove dead code, unused macros etc. or > +that contain Coding Style fixes are not strict bug fixes. > + > +In such situations it is up to the responsible custodian to decide if he he applies -> they apply > +applies such patches even when the Merge Window is closed. > + > +Exception: at the end of the Stabilization Period only strict bug > +fixes my be applied. > + > +Sometimes patches miss the the Merge Window slightly - say by few the the -> the > +hours or even a day. Patch acceptance is not as critical as a > +financial transaction, or such. So if there is such a slight delay, > +the custodian is free to turn a blind eye and accept it anyway. The > +idea of the development process is to make it foreseeable, > +but not to slow down development. > + > +It makes more sense if an engineer spends another day on testing and > +cleanup and submits the patch a couple of hours late, instead of > +submitting a green patch which will waste efforts from several people > +during several rounds of review and reposts. > + > +Differences to Linux Development Process > +---------------------------------------- > + > +* In Linux, top-level maintainers will collect patches in their trees and send > + pull requests to Linus as soon as the merge window opens. > + So far, most U-Boot custodians do not work like that; they send pull requests > + only at (or even after) the end of the merge window. > +* In Linux, the closing of the merge window is marked by the release of the > + next ``"-rc1"`` > + In U-Boot, ``"-rc1"`` will only be released after all (or at least most of > + the) patches that were submitted during the merge window have been applied. > + > +Custodians > +---------- > + > +The Custodians take responsibility for some area of the U-Boot code. The > +in-tree ``MAINTAINERS`` files list who is reponsible for which areas. reponsible -> responsible > + > +It is their responsibility to pick up patches from the mailing list > +that fall into their responsibility, and to process these. > + > +A very important responsibility of each custodian is to provide > +feedback to the submitter of a patch about what is going on: if the > +patch was accepted, or if it was rejected (which exact list of > +reasons), if it needs to be reworked (with respective review > +comments). Even a "I have no time now, will look into it later" > +message is better than nothing. Also, if there are remarks to a > +patch, these should leave no doubt if they were just comments and the > +patch will be accepted anyway, or if the patch should be > +reworked/resubmitted, or if it was rejected. > + > +Work flow of a Custodian > +------------------------ > + > +The normal flow of work in the U-Boot development process will look > +like this: > + > +#. A developer submits a patch via e-mail to the u-boot-users mailing list. > + U-Boot has adopted the `Linux kernel signoff policy `_, so the submitter must > + include a ``Signed-off-by:`` line. > +#. Everybody who can is invited to review and test the changes. Reviews should > + reply on the mailing list with ``Acked-by`` lines. > +#. The responsible custodian > + > + #. inspects this patch, especially for: > + > + #. :doc:`codingstyle` > + #. Basic logic: > + > + * The patch fixes a real problem. > + * The patch does not introduce new problems, especially it does not break > + other boards or architectures > + > + #. U-Boot Philosophy > + #. Applies cleanly to the source tree > + #. passes a ``MAKEALL`` compile test without creating new warnings > + > +#. Notes: > + > + #. In some cases more than one custodian may be affected or feel responsible. > + To avoid duplicated efforts, the custodian who starts processing the > + patch should send a short ACK to the mailing list. > + #. We should create some tool to automatically do this. > + #. This is well documented in :doc:`designprinciples`. > + #. The custodian decides himself how recent the code must be. It is > + acceptable to request patches against the last officially released > + version of U-Boot or newer. Of course a custodian can also accept > + patches against older code. > + #. Commits should show original author in the ``author`` field and include all > + sign off/ack lines. > + > +5. The custodian decides to accept or to reject the patch. > +#. If accepted, the custodian adds the patch to his public git repository and > + notifies the mailing list. This note should include: > + > + * a short description of the changes > + * the list of the affected boards / architectures etc. > + * suggested tests > + > + Although the custodian is supposed to perform his own tests his -> their > + it is a well-known and accepted fact that he needs help from he -> they > + other developers who - for example - have access to the required > + hardware or tool chains. > + The custodian request help for tests and feedback from > + specific maintainers and U-Boot users. > +#. Once tests are passed, some agreed time limit expires, the custodian > + requests that the changes in his public git repository be merged into the his -> their > + main tree. If necessary, the custodian may have to adapt his changes to his -> their > + allow for a clean merge. > + Todo: define a reasonable time limit. 3 weeks? regards, Claudius