* 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>
This catches some common spelling errors, but is *not* an exhaustive spell-checker. The only false positive is "rouge" in Gemfile.lock, which is why I'm excluding that file.
True positives are in the change, and it does catch the "langauge" typo I keep making, which zygoloid fixed for me in a few spots. False negatives are:
- virmc
- Announcemented
- propsal
For comparison:
- cspell (https://www.npmjs.com/package/cspell) is too aggressive and has a small dictionary
- Caught the false negatives, but many false positives, including 'LLVM', 'roadmap', 'Carruth'
- https://github.com/lorenzwalthert/precommit has a spellcheck, but config looks ruby-specific
This sentence feels like a hold-over from the Google Doc, which still feels useful in that context. Especially because it's so easy to copy/share Docs outside the shared drive. However, for things going to GitHub, it seems like we should either have it everywhere or nowhere, and it doesn't feel helpful enough to have in every file.
My feeling would be different about a notice on the website -- that could be done centrally for all pages, and may be more useful. However, I haven't bothered there because we restrict access to docs, and I think the login flow should make it clearer that a lack of re-sharing is the intent.
* Proposal timeline proposal
As this proposal was started and approved before the PR-based process was in place, this PR will be used to put the old proposal Doc that was approved into Markdown.
* Update p00xx.md
* Rename the proposal file to match the PR
Also update the reference inside the file.
* Update proposals/p0074.md
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
* Update proposals/p0074.md
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Added here:
- .pre-commit-config.yaml
- docs/project/contribution_tools.md
- src/scripts/pre-commit-toc.js
- CONTRIBUTING.md
- proposals/* (just to switch TOC formats)
The rest consists of auto-generated fixes.
The switch from doctoc to markdown-toc is because doctoc wants to put a TOC in every file, whereas markdown-toc only does it if you have an insertion point.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Jon Meow
Chandler Carruth
Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
sidney13andJon Meow