blob: 302c998e4802eff760e26f34a55943903ed7a7af (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
|
Reviewing/Merging Patches
=========================
Everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. When reviewing a patch try
to keep each of these concepts in mind:
Architecture
------------
* Is the proposed change being made in the correct place? Is it a fix in a
backend when it should be in the primitives?
Intent
------
* What is the change being proposed?
* Do we want this feature or is the bug they're fixing really a bug?
Implementation
--------------
* Does the change do what the author claims?
* Are there sufficient tests?
* Has it been documented?
* Will this change introduce new bugs?
Grammar/Style
-------------
These are small things that are not caught by the automated style checkers.
* Does a variable need a better name?
* Should this be a keyword argument?
Merge Requirements
------------------
Because cryptography is so complex, and the implications of getting it wrong so
devastating, ``cryptography`` has a strict merge policy for committers:
* Patches must *never* be pushed directly to ``master``, all changes (even the
most trivial typo fixes!) must be submitted as a pull request.
* A committer may *never* merge their own pull request, a second party must
merge their changes. If multiple people work on a pull request, it must be
merged by someone who did not work on it.
* A patch that breaks tests, or introduces regressions by changing or removing
existing tests should not be merged. Tests must always be passing on
``master``.
* If somehow the tests get into a failing state on ``master`` (such as by a
backwards incompatible release of a dependency) no pull requests may be
merged until this is rectified.
* All merged patches must have 100% test coverage.
The purpose of these policies is to minimize the chances we merge a change
that jeopardizes our users' security.
|
