-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge pull request #3 from IBM/cleanup
Added minikube example
- Loading branch information
Showing
22 changed files
with
228 additions
and
283 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ | ||
# Maintainers Guide | ||
|
||
This guide is intended for maintainers - anybody with commit access to Trusted | ||
Service Identity repository. | ||
|
||
[Maintainers List](./MAINTAINERS.md##maintainers-list) | ||
|
||
## Methodology | ||
|
||
This repository does not have a traditional release management cycle, but | ||
should instead be maintained as a useful, working, and polished reference at | ||
all times. While all work can therefore be focused on the master branch, the | ||
quality of this branch should never be compromised. | ||
|
||
The remainder of this document details how to merge pull requests to the | ||
repositories. | ||
|
||
## Merge approval | ||
|
||
The project maintainers use LGTM (Looks Good To Me) in comments on the pull | ||
request to indicate acceptance prior to merging. A change requires LGTMs from | ||
two project maintainers. If the code is written by a maintainer, the change | ||
only requires one additional LGTM. | ||
|
||
## Reviewing Pull Requests | ||
|
||
We recommend reviewing pull requests directly within GitHub. This allows a | ||
public commentary on changes, providing transparency for all users. When | ||
providing feedback be civil, courteous, and kind. Disagreement is fine, so long | ||
as the discourse is carried out politely. If we see a record of uncivil or | ||
abusive comments, we will revoke your commit privileges and invite you to leave | ||
the project. | ||
|
||
During your review, consider the following points: | ||
|
||
### Does the change have positive impact? | ||
|
||
Some proposed changes may not represent a positive impact to the project. Ask | ||
whether or not the change will make understanding the code easier, or if it | ||
could simply be a personal preference on the part of the author (see | ||
[bikeshedding](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding)). | ||
|
||
Pull requests that do not have a clear positive impact should be closed without | ||
merging. | ||
|
||
### Do the changes make sense? | ||
|
||
If you do not understand what the changes are or what they accomplish, ask the | ||
author for clarification. Ask the author to add comments and/or clarify test | ||
case names to make the intentions clear. | ||
|
||
At times, such clarification will reveal that the author may not be using the | ||
code correctly, or is unaware of features that accommodate their needs. If you | ||
feel this is the case, work up a code sample that would address the pull | ||
request for them, and feel free to close the pull request once they confirm. | ||
|
||
### Does the change introduce a new feature? | ||
|
||
For any given pull request, ask yourself "is this a new feature?" If so, does | ||
the pull request (or associated issue) contain narrative indicating the need | ||
for the feature? If not, ask them to provide that information. | ||
|
||
Are new unit tests in place that test all new behaviors introduced? If not, do | ||
not merge the feature until they are! Is documentation in place for the new | ||
feature? (See the documentation guidelines). If not do not merge the feature | ||
until it is! Is the feature necessary for general use cases? Try and keep the | ||
scope of any given component narrow. If a proposed feature does not fit that | ||
scope, recommend to the user that they maintain the feature on their own, and | ||
close the request. You may also recommend that they see if the feature gains | ||
traction among other users, and suggest they re-submit when they can show such | ||
support. | ||
|
||
## Maintainers List | ||
IBM Research: | ||
* Mariusz Sabath - [@mrsabath](https://github.com/mrsabath) - sabath@us.ibm.com | ||
* Brandon Lum - [@lumjjb](https://github.com/lumjjb) - Brandon.Lum@ibm.com | ||
* Daniel Pittner - [@dpittner](https://github.com/dpittner) - DPITTNER@de.ibm.com |
Oops, something went wrong.