|
|
|
# Node.js Collaborator Guide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Contents**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* [Issues and Pull Requests](#issues-and-pull-requests)
|
|
|
|
* [Accepting Modifications](#accepting-modifications)
|
|
|
|
- [Involving the CTC](#involving-the-ctc)
|
|
|
|
* [Landing Pull Requests](#landing-pull-requests)
|
|
|
|
- [Technical HOWTO](#technical-howto)
|
|
|
|
- [I Just Made a Mistake](#i-just-made-a-mistake)
|
|
|
|
- [Long Term Support](#long-term-support)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document contains information for Collaborators of the Node.js
|
|
|
|
project regarding maintaining the code, documentation and issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collaborators should be familiar with the guidelines for new
|
|
|
|
contributors in [CONTRIBUTING.md](./CONTRIBUTING.md) and also
|
|
|
|
understand the project governance model as outlined in
|
|
|
|
[GOVERNANCE.md](./GOVERNANCE.md).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Issues and Pull Requests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Courtesy should always be shown to individuals submitting issues and
|
|
|
|
pull requests to the Node.js project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collaborators should feel free to take full responsibility for
|
|
|
|
managing issues and pull requests they feel qualified to handle, as
|
|
|
|
long as this is done while being mindful of these guidelines, the
|
|
|
|
opinions of other Collaborators and guidance of the CTC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collaborators may **close** any issue or pull request they believe is
|
|
|
|
not relevant for the future of the Node.js project. Where this is
|
|
|
|
unclear, the issue should be left open for several days to allow for
|
|
|
|
additional discussion. Where this does not yield input from Node.js
|
|
|
|
Collaborators or additional evidence that the issue has relevance, the
|
|
|
|
issue may be closed. Remember that issues can always be re-opened if
|
|
|
|
necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Accepting Modifications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All modifications to the Node.js code and documentation should be
|
|
|
|
performed via GitHub pull requests, including modifications by
|
|
|
|
Collaborators and CTC members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All pull requests must be reviewed and accepted by a Collaborator with
|
|
|
|
sufficient expertise who is able to take full responsibility for the
|
|
|
|
change. In the case of pull requests proposed by an existing
|
|
|
|
Collaborator, an additional Collaborator is required for sign-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In some cases, it may be necessary to summon a qualified Collaborator
|
|
|
|
to a pull request for review by @-mention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are unsure about the modification and are not prepared to take
|
|
|
|
full responsibility for the change, defer to another Collaborator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before landing pull requests, sufficient time should be left for input
|
|
|
|
from other Collaborators. Leave at least 48 hours during the week and
|
|
|
|
72 hours over weekends to account for international time differences
|
|
|
|
and work schedules. Trivial changes (e.g. those which fix minor bugs
|
|
|
|
or improve performance without affecting API or causing other
|
|
|
|
wide-reaching impact) may be landed after a shorter delay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where there is no disagreement amongst Collaborators, a pull request
|
|
|
|
may be landed given appropriate review. Where there is discussion
|
|
|
|
amongst Collaborators, consensus should be sought if possible. The
|
|
|
|
lack of consensus may indicate the need to elevate discussion to the
|
|
|
|
CTC for resolution (see below).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All bugfixes require a test case which demonstrates the defect. The
|
|
|
|
test should *fail* before the change, and *pass* after the change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All pull requests that modify executable code should be subjected to
|
|
|
|
continuous integration tests on the
|
|
|
|
[project CI server](https://ci.nodejs.org/).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Involving the CTC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collaborators may opt to elevate pull requests or issues to the CTC for
|
|
|
|
discussion by assigning the ***ctc-agenda*** tag. This should be done
|
|
|
|
where a pull request:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- has a significant impact on the codebase,
|
|
|
|
- is inherently controversial; or
|
|
|
|
- has failed to reach consensus amongst the Collaborators who are
|
|
|
|
actively participating in the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The CTC should serve as the final arbiter where required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Landing Pull Requests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always modify the original commit message to include additional meta
|
|
|
|
information regarding the change process:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A `Reviewed-By: Name <email>` line for yourself and any
|
|
|
|
other Collaborators who have reviewed the change.
|
|
|
|
- A `PR-URL:` line that references the full GitHub URL of the original
|
|
|
|
pull request being merged so it's easy to trace a commit back to the
|
|
|
|
conversation that led up to that change.
|
|
|
|
- A `Fixes: X` line, where _X_ is either includes the full GitHub URL
|
|
|
|
for an issue, and/or the hash and commit message if the commit fixes
|
|
|
|
a bug in a previous commit. Multiple `Fixes:` lines may be added if
|
|
|
|
appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See the commit log for examples such as
|
|
|
|
[this one](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/b636ba8186) if unsure
|
|
|
|
exactly how to format your commit messages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Double check PRs to make sure the person's _full name_ and email
|
|
|
|
address are correct before merging.
|
|
|
|
- Except when updating dependencies, all commits should be self
|
|
|
|
contained (meaning every commit should pass all tests). This makes
|
|
|
|
it much easier when bisecting to find a breaking change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Technical HOWTO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Optional:_ ensure that you are not in a borked `am`/`rebase` state
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
$ git am --abort
|
|
|
|
$ git rebase --abort
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Checkout proper target branch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
$ git checkout master
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update the tree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
$ git fetch origin
|
|
|
|
$ git merge --ff-only origin/master
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apply external patches
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
$ curl -L https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/xxx.patch | git am --whitespace=fix
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check and re-review the changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
$ git diff origin/master
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check number of commits and commit messages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
$ git log origin/master...master
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there are multiple commits that relate to the same feature or
|
|
|
|
one with a feature and separate with a test for that feature,
|
|
|
|
you'll need to use `squash` or `fixup`:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
$ git rebase -i origin/master
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This will open a screen like this (in the default shell editor):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
pick 6928fc1 crypto: add feature A
|
|
|
|
pick 8120c4c add test for feature A
|
|
|
|
pick 51759dc feature B
|
|
|
|
pick 7d6f433 test for feature B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Rebase f9456a2..7d6f433 onto f9456a2
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
# Commands:
|
|
|
|
# p, pick = use commit
|
|
|
|
# r, reword = use commit, but edit the commit message
|
|
|
|
# e, edit = use commit, but stop for amending
|
|
|
|
# s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit
|
|
|
|
# f, fixup = like "squash", but discard this commit's log message
|
|
|
|
# x, exec = run command (the rest of the line) using shell
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
# These lines can be re-ordered; they are executed from top to bottom.
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
# If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST.
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
# However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
# Note that empty commits are commented out
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replace a couple of `pick`s with `fixup` to squash them into a
|
|
|
|
previous commit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
pick 6928fc1 crypto: add feature A
|
|
|
|
fixup 8120c4c add test for feature A
|
|
|
|
pick 51759dc feature B
|
|
|
|
fixup 7d6f433 test for feature B
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replace `pick` with `reword` to change the commit message:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
reword 6928fc1 crypto: add feature A
|
|
|
|
fixup 8120c4c add test for feature A
|
|
|
|
reword 51759dc feature B
|
|
|
|
fixup 7d6f433 test for feature B
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Save the file and close the editor. You'll be asked to enter a new
|
|
|
|
commit message for that commit. This is a good moment to fix incorrect
|
|
|
|
commit logs, ensure that they are properly formatted, and add
|
|
|
|
`Reviewed-By` lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time to push it:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
$ git push origin master
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### I Just Made a Mistake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With `git`, there's a way to override remote trees by force pushing
|
|
|
|
(`git push -f`). This should generally be seen as forbidden (since
|
|
|
|
you're rewriting history on a repository other people are working
|
|
|
|
against) but is allowed for simpler slip-ups such as typos in commit
|
|
|
|
messages. However, you are only allowed to force push to any Node.js
|
|
|
|
branch within 10 minutes from your original push. If someone else
|
|
|
|
pushes to the branch or the 10 minute period passes, consider the
|
|
|
|
commit final.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Long Term Support
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### What is LTS?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long Term Support (often referred to as *LTS*) guarantees application developers
|
|
|
|
a 30 month support cycle with specific versions of Node.js.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can find more information [in the full LTS plan](https://github.com/nodejs/lts#lts-plan).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### How does LTS work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a stable branch enters LTS, changes in that branch are limited to bug
|
|
|
|
fixes, security updates, possible npm updates, documentation updates, and
|
|
|
|
certain performance improvements that can be demonstrated to not break existing
|
|
|
|
applications. Semver-minor changes are only permitted if required for bug fixes
|
|
|
|
and then only on a case-by-case basis with LTS WG and possibly Core Technical
|
|
|
|
Committee (CTC) review. Semver-major changes are permitted only if required for
|
|
|
|
security related fixes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a stable branch moves into Maintenance mode, only **critical** bugs,
|
|
|
|
**critical** security fixes, and documentation updates will be permitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Landing semver-minor commits in LTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The default policy is to not land semver-minor or higher commits in any LTS
|
|
|
|
branch. However, the LTS WG or CTC can evaluate any individual semver-minor
|
|
|
|
commit and decide whether a special exception ought to be made. It is
|
|
|
|
expected that such exceptions would be evaluated, in part, on the scope
|
|
|
|
and impact of the changes on the code, the risk to ecosystem stability
|
|
|
|
incurred by accepting the change, and the expected benefit that landing the
|
|
|
|
commit will have for the ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any collaborator who feels a semver-minor commit should be landed in an LTS
|
|
|
|
branch should attach the `lts-agenda` label to the pull request. The LTS WG
|
|
|
|
will discuss the issue and, if necessary, will escalate the issue up to the
|
|
|
|
CTC for further discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### How are LTS Branches Managed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are currently three LTS branches: `v4.x`, `v0.10`, and `v0.12`. Each
|
|
|
|
of these is paired with a "staging" branch: `v4.x-staging`, `v0.10-staging`,
|
|
|
|
and `v0.12-staging`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As commits land in `master`, they are cherry-picked back to each staging
|
|
|
|
branch as appropriate. If the commit applies only to the LTS branch, the
|
|
|
|
PR must be opened against the *staging* branch. Commits are selectively
|
|
|
|
pulled from the staging branch into the LTS branch only when a release is
|
|
|
|
being prepared and may be pulled into the LTS branch in a different order
|
|
|
|
than they were landed in staging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any collaborator may land commits into a staging branch, but only the release
|
|
|
|
team should land commits into the LTS branch while preparing a new
|
|
|
|
LTS release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### How can I help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you send your pull request, consider including information about
|
|
|
|
whether your change is breaking. If you think your patch can be backported,
|
|
|
|
please feel free to include that information in the PR thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several LTS related issue and PR labels have been provided:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* `lts-watch-v4.x` - tells the LTS WG that the issue/PR needs to be considered
|
|
|
|
for landing in the `v4.x-staging` branch.
|
|
|
|
* `lts-watch-v0.10` - tells the LTS WG that the issue/PR needs to be considered
|
|
|
|
for landing in the `v0.10-staging` branch.
|
|
|
|
* `lts-watch-v0.12` - tells the LTS WG that the issue/PR needs to be considered
|
|
|
|
for landing in the `v0.12-staging` branch.
|
|
|
|
* `land-on-v4.x` - tells the release team that the commit should be landed
|
|
|
|
in a future v4.x release
|
|
|
|
* `land-on-v0.10` - tells the release team that the commit should be landed
|
|
|
|
in a future v0.10 release
|
|
|
|
* `land-on-v0.12` - tells the release team that the commit should be landed
|
|
|
|
in a future v0.12 release
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any collaborator can attach these labels to any PR/issue. As commits are
|
|
|
|
landed into the staging branches, the `lts-watch-` label will be removed.
|
|
|
|
Likewise, as commits are landed in a LTS release, the `land-on-` label will
|
|
|
|
be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collaborators are encouraged to help the LTS WG by attaching the appropriate
|
|
|
|
`lts-watch-` label to any PR that may impact an LTS release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### How is an LTS release cut?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the LTS working group determines that a new LTS release is required,
|
|
|
|
selected commits will be picked from the staging branch to be included in the
|
|
|
|
release. This process of making a release will be a collaboration between the
|
|
|
|
LTS working group and the Release team.
|