The codebase is maintained using the "contributor workflow" where everyone without exception contributes patch proposals using "pull requests". This facilitates social contribution, easy testing and peer review.
To contribute a patch, the workflow is a as follows:
- Fork Repository
- Create topic branch
- Commit patches
In general commits should be atomic and diffs should be easy to read. For this reason do not mix any formatting fixes or code moves with actual code changes. Further, each commit, individually, should compile and pass tests, in order to ensure git bisect and other automated tools function properly.
When adding a new feature, thought must be given to the long term technical debt. Every new feature should be covered by unit tests where possible.
When refactoring, structure your PR to make it easy to review and don't hesitate to split it into multiple small, focused PRs.
Commits should cover both the issue fixed and the solution's rationale. These guidelines should be kept in mind.
To facilitate communication with other contributors, the project is making use of GitHub's "assignee" field. First check that no one is assigned and then comment suggesting that you're working on it. If someone is already assigned, don't hesitate to ask if the assigned party or previous commenters are still working on it if it has been awhile.
Where possible, breaking existing APIs should be avoided. Instead, add new APIs and
use #[deprecated]
to discourage use of the old one.
Deprecated APIs are typically maintained for one release cycle. In other words, an API that has been deprecated with the 0.10 release can be expected to be removed in the 0.11 release. This allows for smoother upgrades without incurring too much technical debt inside this library.
If you deprecated an API as part of a contribution, we encourage you to "own" that API and send a follow-up to remove it as part of the next release cycle.
Usage of .unwrap() or .expect("...") methods is allowed only in examples or tests.
Anyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pull request. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well as test out the patch set and opine on the technical merits of the patch. PR should be reviewed first on the conceptual level before focusing on code style or grammar fixes.
Concept ACK - Agree with the idea and overall direction, but haven't reviewed the code changes or tested them.
utACK (untested ACK) - Reviewed and agree with the code changes but haven't actually tested them.
tACK (tested ACK) - Reviewed the code changes and have verified the functionality or bug fix.
ACK - A loose ACK can be confusing. It's best to avoid them unless it's a documentation/comment only change in which case there is nothing to test/verify; therefore the tested/untested distinction is not there.
NACK - Disagree with the code changes/concept. Should be accompanied by an explanation.
Use cargo fmt and cargo clippy with the default settings to format code before committing.
This is also enforced by the CI.
You may be interested by Jon Atacks guide on How to review Bitcoin Core PRs and How to make Bitcoin Core PRs. While there are differences between the projects in terms of context and maturity, many of the suggestions offered apply to this project.