* Decision for proposal #42 (Create code review guidelines)
This is a recreation of PR #137 that got stuck in git merge hell.
* Results of running pre-commit
* Create Overview proposal decision
Create the proposal decision for the proposal in PR83: An incomplete, early, and in-progress overview of the language design
* Update proposals/p0083-decision.md
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
* Rerun pre-commit
Adjusted some spaces.
* Rename decision to use _ instead of -
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Caught by black stable change, done by `pre-commit autoupdate`
`pre-commit autoupdate` also wanted to update pre-commit-hooks, but that gave me some pyenv errors so I'm leaving it alone for now.
Main reasons for doing this were:
- Add tests for update_label_access
- Reduce js reliance
- Unify handling of access tokens
- Migrate more to GH's graphql (unfortunately not everything, pygithub is rest-based)
- With pytest, reduce the number of executable scripts
Carbon needs a strong code review process to handle code (and other)
changes that are not significant proposals. This attempts to provide
clear guidance on the process, structure, and scope of code review.
It also gives detailed guidance on how to effectively do code review
for both reviewers and authors.
This proposal was accepted on 2020-08-04.
This had been causing me issues when writing a test for pr-comments.py, which I then renamed so that I could import. It's had me mulling that I should really write tests for other scripts, but the name gets in the way.
The decision files are just an exception, so trying to reach consistency.
Co-authored by: chandlerc
- Based on [PR 22](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/83)
- [Idea topic](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/proposal-for-an-incomplete-rough-high-level-overview-ready-for-early-feedback/52)
- [RFC](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/rfc-an-incomplete-early-and-in-progress-overview-of-the-language-design/73)
- [Decision announcement](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/accepted-an-incomplete-early-and-in-progress-overview-of-the-language-design/110)
This proposal should be considered a starting point of the language design. It's not intended to be final; language details may change. This is intended to offer a reasonable starting point for:
- Example code.
- Conceptualizing Carbon at a high level.
- Reasonable, but not necessarily final, approaches to features in README.md.
- If any idea is obviously bad, we can clean it up here.
This proposal is not intended to achieve:
- A whole language design.
- This is way too much work for a single proposal; this is a skeletal framework only.
- As we work on feature-specific designs, we may decide to use other approaches. That's fine: we only need somewhere to start.
- The summaries in README.md may be expected to change over time.
- Feature-specific files aren't intended to be well-written or comprehensive. They are a quick jot of prior thoughts.
- We want to avoid getting stuck on language details that we should consider
more carefully regardless. If you're passionate about a feature, please feel
free to start a new proposal for it.
- Each and every aspect of the suggested overview should be subject to careful
examination and justification before it becomes a settled plan of record.
Chandler started this with https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/22. I've taken it over with the following changes:
- More of a directory hierarchy.
- Trying to thin out the main file (now README.md) to lighter summaries of features.
- Details/rationale/alternatives should be in feature-specific files.
- Draft files are linked as references where added.
For an example of how we may proceed with feature-specific designs, see https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/80. In this structure:
- docs/design/README.md mentions interoperability, with a light overview.
- The light overview is not yet in https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/80.
- docs/design/interoperability/README.md goes into more depth on interoperability, covering key points of the approach.
- Individual files in docs/design/interoperability/* go into more depth on interoperability.
Simple designs may not have a subdirectory. All current feature-specific designs do not -- they may be moved later.
- Add mentions of new "comment deadline" label.
- Link to review manager doc from evolution doc.
- Standardize evolution doc on "topic" instead of "forum topic" (use was mixed).
We're running into issues with md handlers that expect this kind of 4-space indent. It should be cross-compatible with GH, so switch, even though it feels a little churny.
Manual edits are to:
- .prettierrc.yaml:
- rename from .prettierrc
- add tabWidth (primary change)
- add trailingComma (fix vimPrettier skew)
- contribution_tools.md: Fix remarks about .prettierrc.yaml
- pre-commit-toc.js: indent, bullets
- pre-commit-proposal-list.py: indent of output
The rest is the result of `pre-commit run --all-files`
Unfortunately this'll probably depend on the change being propagated into PR branches, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see regressions for a bit. We'll also need to nudge people to update .vimrc's. Hopefully the pre-commit GH action helps catch issues.
python3.6 causes weird venv issues for at least josh11b -- not sure why.
```
$ ls -l /usr/bin/python3.6
-rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4538776 Jan 2 2019 /usr/bin/python3.6*
$ virtualenv -p python3.6 venv
RuntimeError: failed to find interpreter for Builtin discover of python_spec='python3.6'
```
* Proposal for an explicit GitHub workflow.
This suggests a GitHub workflow that uses pull requests, produces linear
history, and both incentivizes and encourages small, incremental changes
(both at the pull request and commit granularity). It tries to follow
general best practices around software engineering at scale and GitHub
workflows. It also tries to ensure the workflow is very well supported
by tooling and automation built into GitHub.
Of note, this proposal should match precisely the current enforced flow
on our GitHub repositories. But we need to actually decide we like this,
write up the rationale behind it, and document what we're doing.
I've added an abbreviated version of the proposal as a documentation
update to the contributing file. Happy to restructure or find a better
home for this. I've tried to focus on the parts that contributors
actually would need to care about as opposed to the things that are
simply and fully enforced mechanically.
My hope after this is to suggest more detailed code review guidelines.
* Addressing review comments.
Notably, I really was giving too much weight to multi-commit PRs which
shouldn't be the common or default. I've tried to restructure everything
to make it much more clear what is going on here.
* Minor tweaks
* Fix typo in CONTRIBUTING.md
Co-authored-by: josh11b <josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
* Extract workflow description and remove redundancies.
* remove tracking issue template field
* Update proposals/p0029.md with reviewer suggsetion.
Co-authored-by: Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
* Continue to address review feedback.
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: austern <austern@google.com>
* Incorporate code review feedback and begin moving toward "trunk" based terminology
* Tweak the wording and make it a bit more consistent.
* Update docs/project/pull_request_workflow.md
Co-authored-by: Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
* Address more review comments.
* Correct the rationale.
* Tweak wording based on discussion in review.
* Improve the rationale around the default branch to avoid overstating or
misstatig things.
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
* Clean up formatting and address a couple of comments on grammar from review.
* Update docs/project/pull_request_workflow.md
Co-authored-by: austern <austern@google.com>
* Add to proposal list.
Co-authored-by: josh11b <josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: austern <austern@google.com>
Sidney Hummert
Richard Smith
Chandler Carruth
George Kulakowski
Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
