git / moonbite-core / CONTRIBUTING.md · raw
Contributing to Litecoin Core============================The Litecoin Core project operates an open contributor model where anyone iswelcome to contribute towards development in the form of peer review, testingand patches. This document explains the practical process and guidelines forcontributing.First, in terms of structure, there is no particular concept of "Bitcoin Coredevelopers" in the sense of privileged people. Open source often naturallyrevolves around a meritocracy where contributors earn trust from the developercommunity over time. Nevertheless, some hierarchy is necessary for practicalpurposes. As such, there are repository "maintainers" who are responsible formerging pull requests, as well as a "lead maintainer" who is responsible for therelease cycle as well as overall merging, moderation and appointment ofmaintainers.Getting Started---------------New contributors are very welcome and needed.Reviewing and testing is highly valued and the most effective way you can contributeas a new contributor. It also will teach you much more about the code andprocess than opening pull requests. Please refer to the [peer review](#peer-review)section below.Before you start contributing, familiarize yourself with the Litecoin Core buildsystem and tests. Refer to the documentation in the repository on how to buildBitcoin Core and how to run the unit tests, functional tests, and fuzz tests.There are many open issues of varying difficulty waiting to be fixed.If you're looking for somewhere to start contributing, check out the[good first issue](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22good+first+issue%22)list or changes that are[up for grabs](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3A%22Up+for+grabs%22).Some of them might no longer be applicable. So if you are interested, butunsure, you might want to leave a comment on the issue first.You may also participate in the weekly[Bitcoin Core PR Review Club](https://bitcoincore.reviews/) meeting.### Good First Issue LabelThe purpose of the `good first issue` label is to highlight which issues aresuitable for a new contributor without a deep understanding of the codebase.However, good first issues can be solved by anyone. If they remain unsolvedfor a longer time, a frequent contributor might address them.You do not need to request permission to start working on an issue. However,you are encouraged to leave a comment if you are planning to work on it. Thiswill help other contributors monitor which issues are actively being addressedand is also an effective way to request assistance if and when you need it.Communication Channels----------------------Most communication about Bitcoin Core development happens on IRC, in the`#bitcoin-core-dev` channel on Freenode. The easiest way to participate on IRC iswith the web client, [webchat.freenode.net](https://webchat.freenode.net/). Chathistory logs can be foundon [http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/](http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/)and [http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/](http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/).Discussion about codebase improvements happens in GitHub issues and pullrequests.The developer[mailing list](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/litecoin-dev)should be used to discuss complicated or controversial consensus or P2P protocol changes before working ona patch set.Contributor Workflow--------------------The codebase is maintained using the "contributor workflow" where everyonewithout exception contributes patch proposals using "pull requests" (PRs). Thisfacilitates social contribution, easy testing and peer review.To contribute a patch, the workflow is as follows: 1. Fork repository ([only for the first time](https://help.github.com/en/articles/fork-a-repo)) 1. Create topic branch 1. Commit patchesFor GUI-related issues or pull requests, the https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository should be used.For all other issues and pull requests, the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin node repository should be used.The master branch for all monotree repositories is identical.As a rule of thumb, everything that only modifies `src/qt` is a GUI-only pullrequest. However:* For global refactoring or other transversal changes the node repository should be used.* For GUI-related build system changes, the node repository should be used because the change needs review by the build systems reviewers.* Changes in `src/interfaces` need to go to the node repository because they might affect other components like the wallet.For large GUI changes that include build system and interface changes, it isrecommended to first open a pull request against the GUI repository. When thereis agreement to proceed with the changes, a pull request with the build systemand interfaces changes can be submitted to the node repository.The project coding conventions in the [developer notes](doc/developer-notes.md)must be followed.### Committing PatchesIn general, [commits should be atomic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_commit#Atomic_commit_convention)and diffs should be easy to read. For this reason, do not mix any formattingfixes or code moves with actual code changes.Make sure each individual commit is hygienic: that it builds successfully on itsown without warnings, errors, regressions, or test failures.Commit messages should be verbose by default consisting of a short subject line(50 chars max), a blank line and detailed explanatory text as separateparagraph(s), unless the title alone is self-explanatory (like "Corrected typoin init.cpp") in which case a single title line is sufficient. Commit messages should behelpful to people reading your code in the future, so explain the reasoning foryour decisions. Further explanation [here](https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/).If a particular commit references another issue, please add the reference. Forexample: `refs #1234` or `fixes #4321`. Using the `fixes` or `closes` keywordswill cause the corresponding issue to be closed when the pull request is merged.Commit messages should never contain any `@` mentions (usernames prefixed with "@").Please refer to the [Git manual](https://git-scm.com/doc) for more informationabout Git. - Push changes to your fork - Create pull request### Creating the Pull RequestThe title of the pull request should be prefixed by the component or area thatthe pull request affects. Valid areas as: - `consensus` for changes to consensus critical code - `doc` for changes to the documentation - `qt` or `gui` for changes to litecoin-qt - `log` for changes to log messages - `mining` for changes to the mining code - `net` or `p2p` for changes to the peer-to-peer network code - `refactor` for structural changes that do not change behavior - `rpc`, `rest` or `zmq` for changes to the RPC, REST or ZMQ APIs - `script` for changes to the scripts and tools - `test`, `qa` or `ci` for changes to the unit tests, QA tests or CI code - `util` or `lib` for changes to the utils or libraries - `wallet` for changes to the wallet code - `build` for changes to the GNU Autotools or reproducible buildsExamples: consensus: Add new opcode for BIP-XXXX OP_CHECKAWESOMESIG net: Automatically create onion service, listen on Tor qt: Add feed bump button log: Fix typo in log messageThe body of the pull request should contain sufficient description of *what* thepatch does, and even more importantly, *why*, with justification and reasoning.You should include references to any discussions (for example, other issues ormailing list discussions).The description for a new pull request should not contain any `@` mentions. ThePR description will be included in the commit message when the PR is merged andany users mentioned in the description will be annoyingly notified each time afork of Bitcoin Core copies the merge. Instead, make any username mentions in asubsequent comment to the PR.### Translation changesNote that translations should not be submitted as pull requests. Please see[Translation Process](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/translation_process.md)for more information on helping with translations.### Work in Progress Changes and Requests for CommentsIf a pull request is not to be considered for merging (yet), pleaseprefix the title with [WIP] or use [Tasks Lists](https://help.github.com/articles/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax/#task-lists)in the body of the pull request to indicate tasks are pending.### Address FeedbackAt this stage, one should expect comments and review from other contributors. Youcan add more commits to your pull request by committing them locally and pushingto your fork until you have satisfied all feedback.Note: Code review is a burdensome but important part of the development process, and as such, certain types of pull requests are rejected. In general, if the **improvements** do not warrant the **review effort** required, the PR has a high chance of being rejected. It is up to the PR author to convince the reviewers that the changes warrant the review effort, and if reviewers are "Concept NACK'ing" the PR, the author may need to present arguments and/or do research backing their suggested changes.### Squashing CommitsIf your pull request contains fixup commits (commits that change the same line of code repeatedly) or too fine-grainedcommits, you may be asked to [squash](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase#_interactive_mode) your commitsbefore it will be merged. The basic squashing workflow is shown below. git checkout your_branch_name git rebase -i HEAD~n # n is normally the number of commits in the pull request. # Set commits (except the one in the first line) from 'pick' to 'squash', save and quit. # On the next screen, edit/refine commit messages. # Save and quit. git push -f # (force push to GitHub)Please update the resulting commit message, if needed. It should read as acoherent message. In most cases, this means not just listing the interimcommits.If you have problems with squashing or other git workflows, you can enable"Allow edits from maintainers" in the right-hand sidebar of the GitHub webinterface and ask for help in the pull request.Please refrain from creating several pull requests for the same change.Use the pull request that is already open (or was created earlier) to amendchanges. This preserves the discussion and review that happened earlier forthe respective change set.The length of time required for peer review is unpredictable and will vary frompull request to pull request.### Rebasing ChangesWhen a pull request conflicts with the target branch, you may be asked to rebase it on top of the current target branch.The `git rebase` command will take care of rebuilding your commits on top of the new base.This project aims to have a clean git history, where code changes are only made in non-merge commits. This simplifiesauditability because merge commits can be assumed to not contain arbitrary code changes. Merge commits should be signed,and the resulting git tree hash must be deterministic and reproducible. The script in[/contrib/verify-commits](/contrib/verify-commits) checks that.After a rebase, reviewers are encouraged to sign off on the force push. This should be relatively straightforward withthe `git range-diff` tool explained in the [productivitynotes](/doc/productivity.md#diff-the-diffs-with-git-range-diff). To avoid needless review churn, maintainers willgenerally merge pull requests that received the most review attention first.Pull Request Philosophy-----------------------Patchsets should always be focused. For example, a pull request could add afeature, fix a bug, or refactor code; but not a mixture. Please also avoid superpull requests which attempt to do too much, are overly large, or overly complexas this makes review difficult.### FeaturesWhen adding a new feature, thought must be given to the long term technical debtand maintenance that feature may require after inclusion. Before proposing a newfeature that will require maintenance, please consider if you are willing tomaintain it (including bug fixing). If features get orphaned with no maintainerin the future, they may be removed by the Repository Maintainer.### RefactoringRefactoring is a necessary part of any software project's evolution. Thefollowing guidelines cover refactoring pull requests for the project.There are three categories of refactoring: code-only moves, code style fixes, andcode refactoring. In general, refactoring pull requests should not mix thesethree kinds of activities in order to make refactoring pull requests easy toreview and uncontroversial. In all cases, refactoring PRs must not change thebehaviour of code within the pull request (bugs must be preserved as is).Project maintainers aim for a quick turnaround on refactoring pull requests, sowhere possible keep them short, uncomplex and easy to verify.Pull requests that refactor the code should not be made by new contributors. Itrequires a certain level of experience to know where the code belongs to and tounderstand the full ramification (including rebase effort of open pull requests).Trivial pull requests or pull requests that refactor the code with no clearbenefits may be immediately closed by the maintainers to reduce unnecessaryworkload on reviewing."Decision Making" Process-------------------------The following applies to code changes to the Litecoin Core project (and relatedprojects such as libsecp256k1), and is not to be confused with overall LitecoinNetwork Protocol consensus changes.Whether a pull request is merged into Litecoin Core rests with the project mergemaintainers and ultimately the project lead.Maintainers will take into consideration if a patch is in line with the generalprinciples of the project; meets the minimum standards for inclusion; and willjudge the general consensus of contributors.In general, all pull requests must: - Have a clear use case, fix a demonstrable bug or serve the greater good of the project (for example refactoring for modularisation); - Be well peer-reviewed; - Have unit tests, functional tests, and fuzz tests, where appropriate; - Follow code style guidelines ([C++](doc/developer-notes.md), [functional tests](test/functional/README.md)); - Not break the existing test suite; - Where bugs are fixed, where possible, there should be unit tests demonstrating the bug and also proving the fix. This helps prevent regression. - Change relevant comments and documentation when behaviour of code changes.Patches that change Litecoin consensus rules are considerably more involved thannormal because they affect the entire ecosystem and so must be preceded byextensive mailing list discussions and have a numbered BIP. While each case willbe different, one should be prepared to expend more time and effort than forother kinds of patches because of increased peer review and consensus buildingrequirements.### Peer ReviewAnyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pullrequest. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well astest out the patch set and opine on the technical merits of the patch. Projectmaintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there isconsensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have beenspread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions).#### Conceptual ReviewA review can be a conceptual review, where the reviewer leaves a comment * `Concept (N)ACK`, meaning "I do (not) agree with the general goal of this pull request", * `Approach (N)ACK`, meaning `Concept ACK`, but "I do (not) agree with the approach of this change".A `NACK` needs to include a rationale why the change is not worthwhile.NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be disregarded.#### Code ReviewAfter conceptual agreement on the change, code review can be provided. A reviewbegins with `ACK BRANCH_COMMIT`, where `BRANCH_COMMIT` is the top of the PRbranch, followed by a description of how the reviewer did the review. Thefollowing language is used within pull request comments: - "I have tested the code", involving change-specific manual testing in addition to running the unit, functional, or fuzz tests, and in case it is not obvious how the manual testing was done, it should be described; - "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged"; - A "nit" refers to a trivial, often non-blocking issue.Project maintainers reserve the right to weigh the opinions of peer reviewersusing common sense judgement and may also weigh based on merit. Reviewers thathave demonstrated a deeper commitment and understanding of the project over timeor who have clear domain expertise may naturally have more weight, as one wouldexpect in all walks of life.Where a patch set affects consensus-critical code, the bar will be muchhigher in terms of discussion and peer review requirements, keeping in mind thatmistakes could be very costly to the wider community. This includes refactoringof consensus-critical code.Where a patch set proposes to change the Litecoin consensus, it must have beendiscussed extensively on the mailing list and IRC, be accompanied by a widelydiscussed BIP and have a generally widely perceived technical consensus of beinga worthwhile change based on the judgement of the maintainers.### Finding ReviewersAs most reviewers are themselves developers with their own projects, the reviewprocess can be quite lengthy, and some amount of patience is required. If you findthat you've been waiting for a pull request to be given attention for severalmonths, there may be a number of reasons for this, some of which you can do somethingabout: - It may be because of a feature freeze due to an upcoming release. During this time, only bug fixes are taken into consideration. If your pull request is a new feature, it will not be prioritized until after the release. Wait for the release. - It may be because the changes you are suggesting do not appeal to people. Rather than nits and critique, which require effort and means they care enough to spend time on your contribution, thundering silence is a good sign of widespread (mild) dislike of a given change (because people don't assume *others* won't actually like the proposal). Don't take that personally, though! Instead, take another critical look at what you are suggesting and see if it: changes too much, is too broad, doesn't adhere to the [developer notes](doc/developer-notes.md), is dangerous or insecure, is messily written, etc. Identify and address any of the issues you find. Then ask e.g. on IRC if someone could give their opinion on the concept itself. - It may be because your code is too complex for all but a few people, and those people may not have realized your pull request even exists. A great way to find people who are qualified and care about the code you are touching is the [Git Blame feature](https://help.github.com/articles/tracing-changes-in-a-file/). Simply look up who last modified the code you are changing and see if you can find them and give them a nudge. Don't be incessant about the nudging, though. - Finally, if all else fails, ask on IRC or elsewhere for someone to give your pull request a look. If you think you've been waiting for an unreasonably long time (say, more than a month) for no particular reason (a few lines changed, etc.), this is totally fine. Try to return the favor when someone else is asking for feedback on their code, and the universe balances out. - Remember that the best thing you can do while waiting is give review to others!Backporting-----------Security and bug fixes can be backported from `master` to releasebranches.If the backport is non-trivial, it may be appropriate to open anadditional PR to backport the change, but only after the original PRhas been merged.Otherwise, backports will be done in batches andthe maintainers will use the proper `Needs backport (...)` labelswhen needed (the original author does not need to worry about it).A backport should contain the following metadata in the commit body:```Github-Pull: #<PR number>Rebased-From: <commit hash of the original commit>```Have a look at [an example backport PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16189).Also see the [backport.py script](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools#backport).Release Policy--------------The project leader is the release manager for each Litecoin Core release.Copyright---------By contributing to this repository, you agree to license your work under theMIT license unless specified otherwise in `contrib/debian/copyright` or atthe top of the file itself. Any work contributed where you are not the originalauthor must contain its license header with the original author(s) and source.