Hi everyone, sorry about the empty message above, I was typing and I pressed the wrong set of keys. So, I was going through the contributor guidelines page[1], and after discussing with Michal Privoznik, I think there are some things that need to be updated. For instance, the 4th point about posting patches mentions using git diff instead of git format-patch.

I also feel that the workflow in general should be re-written and updated with some more details. I have written a very detailed post about the workflow here[2], and might pick some points up from there. Please let me know what you think of it.

On 05/11/2016 02:04 AM, Nishith Shah wrote: > Hi everyone, sorry about the empty message above, I was typing and I pressed > the wrong set of keys. > > So, I was going through the contributor guidelines page[1], and after > discussing with Michal Privoznik, I think there are some things that need to > be updated. For instance, the 4th point about posting patches mentions using > git diff instead of git format-patch. I also feel that the workflow in general > should be re-written and updated with some more details. I have written a very > detailed post about the workflow here[2], and might pick some points up from > there. Please let me know what you think of it. > > Also, please post the other things that you think should be changed on that > page in this thread. > I've thought a bit about this too. I don't think the HACKING page is a good landing page for new contributors. It _is_ useful document _everything_ that a contributor might want to know, but I think we should also have a page specifically for a contributor quickstart which has very bare minimum info. I'm not saying this is anything you need to handle :) Just figured I'd throw my thoughts out.

Ideas for the hypothetical doc, which shouldn't be more than a page or two: - building libvirt, with links to more complete docs. though one of the hardest bits about getting involved with any project is learning the correct build incantation to make things work. I usually suggest grabbing the ./configure line from rpm --eval '%configure', but libvirt has autogen.sh --system as well, but I haven't tested it in a while

- running libvirt: running libvirtd/virsh from git, maybe RPM? probably discouraging 'make install' unless people know what they are doing

- basic steps for running make check and make syntax-check

- mention that we use git format-patch/send-email, but no instructions, link them if necessary. maybe link to example mailing list postings for guidelines for formatting commit messages/series

- A link to the BiteSizedTasks page

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 11.05.2016 16:01, Cole Robinson wrote: >> I've thought a bit about this too. I don't think the HACKING page is a > good >> landing page for new contributors. It _is_ useful document _everything_ > that a >> contributor might want to know, but I think we should also have a page >> specifically for a contributor quickstart which has very bare minimum > info. >> I'm not saying this is anything you need to handle :) Just figured I'd > throw >> my thoughts out. > > Agreed. Good idea! > >> >> Ideas for the hypothetical doc, which shouldn't be more than a page or > two: >> >> - building libvirt, with links to more complete docs. though one of the >> hardest bits about getting involved with any project is learning the > correct >> build incantation to make things work. I usually suggest grabbing the >> ./configure line from rpm --eval '%configure', but libvirt has autogen.sh >> --system as well, but I haven't tested it in a while > > I'd advice them to use the autogen.sh script, because I guess that rpm > produces this long command line enabling all the features supported (for > instance systemd API requiring systemd-devel and so on). In general, > when configure is run without any additional arguments, it enables all > the features that it is able to with packages currently installed in the > system. I don't think we should require newbies to install sheepdog for > instance. > >> >> - running libvirt: running libvirtd/virsh from git, maybe RPM? probably >> discouraging 'make install' unless people know what they are doing > > Correct. ./run daemon/libvirtd or ./run tools/virsh. I wouldn't mention > RPM as it would replace libvirtd they have in the system, which is a > stable one with their buggy one. They are new to the project, there > definitely gonna be some bugs in their code. > >> >> - basic steps for running make check and make syntax-check > > This should be the default. Correct. I usually join them: make all > syntax-check check. > >> >> - mention that we use git format-patch/send-email, but no instructions, > link >> them if necessary. maybe link to example mailing list postings for > guidelines >> for formatting commit messages/series > > Correct. > >> >> - A link to the BiteSizedTasks page > > Correct. > I am definitely +1 for this. Having recently gotten my first patch accepted, I would say that a contributor quickstart page which describes how to set up the bare essentials to start contributing with links to more info is a good idea. Also, anything more about changing stuff on the hacking page, like the example I had given about removing the point that mentions using plain diff or git diff? Any more points or things that should be removed, added or updated from that page? Nishith

On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 10:01 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 05/11/2016 02:04 AM, Nishith Shah wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, sorry about the empty message above, I was typing and I pressed > > the wrong set of keys. > > > > So, I was going through the contributor guidelines page[1], and after > > discussing with Michal Privoznik, I think there are some things that need to > > be updated. For instance, the 4th point about posting patches mentions using > > git diff instead of git format-patch. I also feel that the workflow in general > > should be re-written and updated with some more details. I have written a very > > detailed post about the workflow here[2], and might pick some points up from > > there. Please let me know what you think of it. > > > > Also, please post the other things  that you think should be changed on that > > page in this thread. > > I've thought a bit about this too. I don't think the HACKING page is a good > landing page for new contributors. It _is_ useful document _everything_ that a > contributor might want to know, but I think we should also have a page > specifically for a contributor quickstart which has very bare minimum info. We have something like that - it's called README-hacking :) I argued before that HACKING should be our quickstart document, just as is the case with many other projects, and the full contributors guidelines should live in a separate document that bears a different name.