Edit File: reviewing-patches.rst
Reviewing and merging patches ============================= Everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. We only ask that you try and think carefully, ask questions and are `excellent to one another`_. Code review is our opportunity to share knowledge, design ideas and make friends. 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 and 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. .. _`excellent to one another`: https://speakerdeck.com/ohrite/better-code-review