launchpad development|
Size: 5940
Comment:
|
← Revision 14 as of 2011-02-17 20:01:28 ⇥
Size: 7014
Comment: a lot has changed
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 7: | Line 7: |
| During the development of a feature from concept to rollout there are a number of reviews that occur. The first review process is the SpecificationProcess where the concept is examined and refined into a plan. This plan is eventually signed off by the appropriate manager. Some time later, a coder will start to implement it. When they are about to do this a DesignPhoneCall takes place, which is a verbal review of the design of the planned implementation. Finally, once the code is complete the PreMergeReviews process takes place. | During the development of a feature from concept to rollout there are a number of reviews that occur. The first review process is the LaunchpadEnhancementProposalProcess where the concept is examined and refined into a plan. This plan is eventually signed off by the appropriate manager. Some time later, a coder will start to implement it. When they are about to do this a DesignPhoneCall takes place, which is a verbal review of the design of the planned implementation. Finally, once the code is complete the PreMergeReviews process takes place. |
| Line 10: | Line 17: |
| == Specification reviews == | == Feature review == |
| Line 12: | Line 19: |
| Please see SpecificationProcess for the specification workflow. |
Consult the LaunchpadEnhancementProposalProcess and the [[UI/Design|UI design]] pages to get the workflow that should be completed before starting work on changes to the UI. |
| Line 17: | Line 25: |
| Design reviews are conducted by a DesignPhoneCall between a coder and a reviewer. The review aims to ensure that the resulting code will have few or no structural problems, which makes review of the code easier and faster. | Design reviews are conducted by a DesignPhoneCall between a coder and a reviewer. The review aims to ensure that the resulting code will have few or no structural problems, which makes review of the code easier and faster. |
| Line 22: | Line 33: |
| Once your code is complete, it must go through the PreMergeReviews process to be accepted into the central trunk. See https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Review to learn about Launchpad Merge Proposals. |
Once your code is complete, it must go through the PreMergeReviews process to be accepted into the central trunk. See https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Review to learn about Launchpad Merge Proposals. |
| Line 28: | Line 41: |
| The story starts with you making a Launchpad Merge Proposal into launchpad-devel or launchpad-db-devel. From there the branch is queued for review at https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews . You may ask an on-call reviewer in #launchpad-reviews to review the branch outside of the queue. | The story starts with you making a Launchpad Merge Proposal into launchpad-devel or launchpad-db-devel. From there the branch is queued for review at https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews . You may ask an on-call reviewer in #launchpad-reviews to review the branch outside of the queue. If you are a reviewer and choose not to have it reviewed by another reviewer, you can simply approve your merge proposal and land it at this point. |
| Line 30: | Line 47: |
| Once your reviewer has had time to go over the modifications, he will reply to the proposal with a description of areas or items that need to be fixed, modified or improved in your code. He may also write special recommendations, commend you for your code quality, or ask questions if unclear on domain specifics or obscure functionality. | Once your reviewer has had time to go over the modifications, they will reply to the proposal with a description of areas or items that can be fixed, modified or improved in your code. They may also suggest better spellings of things in your code, or get into a discussion about domain specifics or obscure corner cases which they don't have enough personal knowledge of. |
| Line 32: | Line 51: |
| You '''must''' respond to '''each''' individual suggestion and question made by your reviewer; one of the main dangers with reviews is wasting the reviewer's time by ignoring or forgetting to deal with some specific issue, and the reviewer can't be expected to go through and ensure each item was dealt with --- please make an effort to ensure you respond accurately to reviews. | You '''must''' respond to '''each''' individual suggestion and question made by your reviewer; one of the main dangers with reviews is wasting everyones time by causing lots of back and forth discussions --- please make an effort to ensure you respond accurately to reviews. |
| Line 34: | Line 56: |
| One or more review cycles will be necessary per-modification; the number of cycles will depend on the amount of code changed, the increasing familiarity of the reviewer with your code, and of course the quality of the code produced. | One or more review cycles will be necessary per-modification; the number of cycles will depend on the amount of code changed, the increasing familiarity of the reviewer with your code, and of course the quality of the code produced. |
| Line 36: | Line 61: |
| You may only merge once the reviewer has approved the modification. | You may only merge once the reviewer has approved the review. If you want to make a case why a specific suggestion should not be followed then you must bring it up with the reviewer and not merge until agreement has been reached and documented in the merge proposal. |
| Line 38: | Line 66: |
| Small branches are faster to review than large ones - a branch that is twice as big as another takes more than twice as long to review. Please try to keep branches small and focused. | Small branches are faster to review than large ones - a branch that is twice as big as another takes more than twice as long to review. Please try to keep branches small and focused. |
| Line 41: | Line 71: |
| === Review tags === | === Mentored reviews === |
| Line 43: | Line 73: |
| During the review process, you should keep your branch tags updated correctly in | When developers apply to become Launchpad reviewers they are assigned a mentor. We began referring to the person being mentored as a ''mentat'', a made-up word you may see in reference to mentoring. |
| Line 45: | Line 77: |
| PendingReviews | If your merge proposal is reviewed by a ''mentat'' his/her ''mentor'' will need to review the ''review''. The mentat should add his mentor to the merge proposal. You must wait for both to approve the merge proposal before merging it. |
| Line 47: | Line 82: |
| The tags are meant to give better feedback of where the review stands, and will allow the [[https://chinstrap.ubuntu.com/~jamesh/pending-reviews/|review status page]] to show the branches clearly. |
=== UI reviews === |
| Line 51: | Line 84: |
| The tags may assume one of the following strings: * needs review The initial status. * needs fixing The branch has been reviewed and requires some small changes. * resubmit The branch has been reviewed and it has fundamental problems that require substantial changes '''after''' a new implementation call. * rejected The focus/intent of the branch is not appropiate for merging. * approved (with a comment) The branch can be merged '''after''' the reviewer's comments are addressed. * approved The branch can be merged. Also, if your branch was reviewed by a mentored reviewer (a.k.a. a mentat), you require another review. before you can merge. {{{ .--------------------. | | v | .--------------. .--------------. START ---> | needs-review | ---> | needs-fixing | '--------------' '--------------' /|\ .-----------------------. / | \ .----------. | approved-with-comment | <--' | '--> | approved | '-----------------------' | '----------' | .----------. | rejected | '----------' }}} |
If your branch changes the UI in any significant manner (even text rewordings) you'll need to seek a [[UI/Reviews|UI review]]. The UI reviewers are listed on ReviewerSchedule under the ''specialties'' column. If your UI reviewer is being mentored you'll need to follow the procedure outlined above to ensure the UI review is properly reviewed. |
| Line 102: | Line 92: |
| If, after a successful review process, you submit your code to PQM only to find conflict you need to resolve the conflicts: | If, after a successful review process, you submit your code to PQM only to find conflict you need to resolve the conflicts: |
| Line 104: | Line 95: |
| 1. Merge rocketfuel onto your reviewed branch, resolve the conflict, push, and submit another merge request. | 1. Merge rocketfuel onto your reviewed branch, 1. resolve the conflict, 1. push, and 1. submit again to PQM. |
| Line 106: | Line 100: |
| If, in the process of resolving conflicts, you make non-trivial changes to the code, you should consider having those changes reviewed before attempting to merge them. | If, in the process of resolving conflicts, you make non-trivial changes to the code, you should consider having those changes reviewed before attempting to merge them. |
| Line 111: | Line 107: |
| Each merge message '''must''' include an item indicating who the reviewer of the change was. This is the general form of a commit message. | You must include a commit message for PQM describing the change. If you use {{{ec2 land}}} or {{{bzr lp-land}}}, those commands will take care of adding necessary tags, using information in the merge proposal. |
| Line 113: | Line 109: |
| * {{{[r|rs=foo,bar][ui=none|baz|rs][bug=nnnnnn] describe the change.}}} <<BR>> 'r' means review, 'rs' means rubberstamp. One or ore reviewers must follow the r or rs. The 'ui' token states who reviewed the ui; none may be used when there is no ui, and rs may be used when there is ui, but it needs review '''after''' merging. | * {{{describe the change.}}}<<BR>> |
| Line 115: | Line 111: |
| * {{{[testfix]}}} is a special leading token required to land a branch when trunk branch is broken and future merges must supply a fix. | On the other hand, if you use something other than {{{ec2 land}}} or {{{bzr lp-land}}}, you'll need to manually include an item who the reviewer of the change was. This is the general form of a commit message: * {{{[r|rs=foo,bar][ui=none|baz|rs][bug=nnnnnn] describe the change.}}}<<BR>> 'r' means review, 'rs' means rubberstamp. One or ore reviewers must follow the r or rs. The 'ui' token states who reviewed the ui; none may be used when there is no ui, and rs may be used when there is ui, but it needs review '''after''' merging. * {{{[testfix]}}} is a special leading token required to land a branch when trunk branch is broken and future merges must supply a fix. |
| Line 120: | Line 126: |
| When you are ready to submit your branch to pqm for merging, use the following command (from RocketFuelSetup): | When you are ready to submit your branch to pqm for merging, use the following command (from RocketFuelSetup): |
| Line 125: | Line 132: |
You can simplify the process of running tests on EC2 and landing your branch by doing the following: 1. Get your merge proposal reviewed and in the 'Approved' state, 1. Set the 'Commit Message' on the merge proposal to be the description of the branch, as above but without the reviewers and bug information. (Only the part above marked 'describe the change'.) 1. {{{% utilities/ec2 land}}} -- voilà, that's it! 1. Enjoy a snack, a nap, or take in a movie while ec2 runs the test suite and then submits your branch to PQM. === Community contributors === Only Canonical employees are currently allowed to submit to the Launchpad PQM. Because we deploy code that passed PQM directly to a staging service, a patch could accidentally disclose confidential data and Canonical is not willing to risk that happening due to a non-staff change. As such non Canonical Launchpad developers need to find a Canonical Launchpad developer to test and land their changes. Your reviewer is expected to do it but do not assume he will -- explicitly ask him to do so when the review is approved. If your original reviewer is unavailable when it is time to land your branch, please go to #launchpad-dev and ask any reviewer there to land your approved branch for you. |
This page covers the process for effectively dealing with code and design reviews.
Contents
Overview
During the development of a feature from concept to rollout there are a number of reviews that occur. The first review process is the LaunchpadEnhancementProposalProcess where the concept is examined and refined into a plan. This plan is eventually signed off by the appropriate manager. Some time later, a coder will start to implement it. When they are about to do this a DesignPhoneCall takes place, which is a verbal review of the design of the planned implementation. Finally, once the code is complete the PreMergeReviews process takes place.
Feature review
Consult the LaunchpadEnhancementProposalProcess and the UI design pages to get the workflow that should be completed before starting work on changes to the UI.
Design reviews
Design reviews are conducted by a DesignPhoneCall between a coder and a reviewer. The review aims to ensure that the resulting code will have few or no structural problems, which makes review of the code easier and faster.
Code reviews
Once your code is complete, it must go through the PreMergeReviews process to be accepted into the central trunk. See https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Review to learn about Launchpad Merge Proposals.
Handling review responses
The story starts with you making a Launchpad Merge Proposal into launchpad-devel or launchpad-db-devel. From there the branch is queued for review at https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews . You may ask an on-call reviewer in #launchpad-reviews to review the branch outside of the queue. If you are a reviewer and choose not to have it reviewed by another reviewer, you can simply approve your merge proposal and land it at this point.
Once your reviewer has had time to go over the modifications, they will reply to the proposal with a description of areas or items that can be fixed, modified or improved in your code. They may also suggest better spellings of things in your code, or get into a discussion about domain specifics or obscure corner cases which they don't have enough personal knowledge of.
You must respond to each individual suggestion and question made by your reviewer; one of the main dangers with reviews is wasting everyones time by causing lots of back and forth discussions --- please make an effort to ensure you respond accurately to reviews.
One or more review cycles will be necessary per-modification; the number of cycles will depend on the amount of code changed, the increasing familiarity of the reviewer with your code, and of course the quality of the code produced.
You may only merge once the reviewer has approved the review. If you want to make a case why a specific suggestion should not be followed then you must bring it up with the reviewer and not merge until agreement has been reached and documented in the merge proposal.
Small branches are faster to review than large ones - a branch that is twice as big as another takes more than twice as long to review. Please try to keep branches small and focused.
Mentored reviews
When developers apply to become Launchpad reviewers they are assigned a mentor. We began referring to the person being mentored as a mentat, a made-up word you may see in reference to mentoring.
If your merge proposal is reviewed by a mentat his/her mentor will need to review the review. The mentat should add his mentor to the merge proposal. You must wait for both to approve the merge proposal before merging it.
UI reviews
If your branch changes the UI in any significant manner (even text rewordings) you'll need to seek a UI review. The UI reviewers are listed on ReviewerSchedule under the specialties column. If your UI reviewer is being mentored you'll need to follow the procedure outlined above to ensure the UI review is properly reviewed.
Dealing with Conflicts
If, after a successful review process, you submit your code to PQM only to find conflict you need to resolve the conflicts:
- Merge rocketfuel onto your reviewed branch,
- resolve the conflict,
- push, and
- submit again to PQM.
If, in the process of resolving conflicts, you make non-trivial changes to the code, you should consider having those changes reviewed before attempting to merge them.
The merge message
You must include a commit message for PQM describing the change. If you use ec2 land or bzr lp-land, those commands will take care of adding necessary tags, using information in the merge proposal.
describe the change.
On the other hand, if you use something other than ec2 land or bzr lp-land, you'll need to manually include an item who the reviewer of the change was. This is the general form of a commit message:
[r|rs=foo,bar][ui=none|baz|rs][bug=nnnnnn] describe the change.
'r' means review, 'rs' means rubberstamp. One or ore reviewers must follow the r or rs. The 'ui' token states who reviewed the ui; none may be used when there is no ui, and rs may be used when there is ui, but it needs review after merging.[testfix] is a special leading token required to land a branch when trunk branch is broken and future merges must supply a fix.
Make it so
When you are ready to submit your branch to pqm for merging, use the following command (from RocketFuelSetup):
bzr pqm-submit -m '[r=reviewer] description of changes'
You can simplify the process of running tests on EC2 and landing your branch by doing the following:
- Get your merge proposal reviewed and in the 'Approved' state,
- Set the 'Commit Message' on the merge proposal to be the description of the branch, as above but without the reviewers and bug information. (Only the part above marked 'describe the change'.)
% utilities/ec2 land -- voilà, that's it!
- Enjoy a snack, a nap, or take in a movie while ec2 runs the test suite and then submits your branch to PQM.
Community contributors
Only Canonical employees are currently allowed to submit to the Launchpad PQM. Because we deploy code that passed PQM directly to a staging service, a patch could accidentally disclose confidential data and Canonical is not willing to risk that happening due to a non-staff change. As such non Canonical Launchpad developers need to find a Canonical Launchpad developer to test and land their changes. Your reviewer is expected to do it but do not assume he will -- explicitly ask him to do so when the review is approved.
If your original reviewer is unavailable when it is time to land your branch, please go to #launchpad-dev and ask any reviewer there to land your approved branch for you.
