Commit 808bca89 authored by Pekka Paalanen's avatar Pekka Paalanen
Browse files

contributing: use Gitlab merge request workflow

The experience from Weston shows that the Gitlab merge request based workflow
works really well. Recently there have also been issues with the mailing list
that have made the email based workflow more painful than it used to be. Those
issues might have been temporary or occasional, but they probably are only
going to increase.

The MR workflow is different, it has its issues
(freedesktop/freedesktop#74) and we
likely lose the explicit Reviewed-by etc. tags from commit messages, but it is
also much easier to work with: no more whitespace damaged patches, lost email,
setting up git-send-email; we gain automated CI before any human reviewer even
looks at anything, and people can jump in to an ongoing discussion even if they
weren't subscribed before.

If you still want email, you can subscribe to that selectively(!) in Gitlab

This text has been copied from Weston's of the 5.0.91 release
and slight...
parent 15cba8b0
Pipeline #22808 passed with stage
in 2 minutes and 43 seconds
......@@ -4,8 +4,46 @@ Contributing to Wayland
Sending patches
Patches should be sent to ****, using
`git send-email`. See [git documentation] for help.
Patches should be sent via
[GitLab merge requests](
Wayland is
[hosted on's GitLab](
in order to submit code, you should create an account on this GitLab instance,
fork the core Wayland repository, push your changes to a branch in your new
repository, and then submit these patches for review through a merge request.
Wayland formerly accepted patches via `git-send-email`, sent to
****; these were
[tracked using Patchwork](
Some old patches continue to be sent this way, and we may accept small new
patches sent to the list, but please send all new patches through GitLab merge
Formatting and separating commits
Unlike many projects using GitHub and GitLab, Wayland has a
[linear, 'recipe' style history](
This means that every commit should be small, digestible, stand-alone, and
functional. Rather than a purely chronological commit history like this:
connection: plug a fd leak
plug another fd leak
connection: init fds to -1
close all fds
refactor checks into a new function
don't close fds we handed out
we aim to have a clean history which only reflects the final state, broken up
into functional groupings:
connection: Refactor out closure allocation
connection: Clear fds we shouldn't close to -1
connection: Make wl_closure_destroy() close fds of undispatched closures
This ensures that the final patch series only contains the final state,
without the changes and missteps taken along the development process.
The first line of a commit message should contain a prefix indicating
what part is affected by the patch followed by one sentence that
......@@ -45,7 +83,7 @@ We won't reject patches that lack S-o-b, but it is strongly recommended.
When you re-send patches, revised or not, it would be very good to document the
changes compared to the previous revision in the commit message and/or the
cover letter. If you have already received Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags, you
merge request. If you have already received Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags, you
should evaluate whether they still apply and include them in the respective
commit messages. Otherwise the tags may be lost, reviewers miss the credit they
deserve, and the patches may cause redundant review effort.
......@@ -54,78 +92,37 @@ deserve, and the patches may cause redundant review effort.
Tracking patches and following up
[Wayland Patchwork]( is
used for tracking patches to Wayland. Xwayland patches are tracked with the
[Xorg project](
instead. Weston uses
[GitLab merge requests](
for code review, and does not use mailing list review at all.
Libinput patches, even though they use the same mailing list as
Wayland, are not tracked in the Wayland Patchwork.
The following applies only to Wayland.
If a patch is not found in Patchwork, there is a high possibility for it to be
forgotten. Patches attached to bug reports or not arriving to the mailing list
because of e.g. subscription issues will not be in Patchwork because Patchwork
only collects patches sent to the list.
When you send a revised version of a patch, it would be very nice to mark your
old patch as superseded (or rejected, if that is applicable). You can change
the status of your own patches by registering to Patchwork - ownership is
identified by email address you use to register. Updating your patch status
appropriately will help maintainer work.
The following patch states are found in Patchwork:
- **New**:
Patches under discussion or not yet processed.
- **Under review**:
Mostly unused state.
- **Accepted**:
The patch is merged in the master branch upstream, as is or slightly
- **Rejected**:
The idea or approach is rejected and cannot be fixed by revising
the patch.
- **RFC**:
Request for comments, not meant to be merged as is.
- **Not applicable**:
The email was not actually a patch, or the patch is not for Wayland.
Libinput patches are usually automatically ignored by Wayland
Patchwork, but if they get through, they will be marked as Not
- **Changes requested**:
Reviewers determined that changes to the patch are needed. The
submitter is expected to send a revised version. (You should
not wait for your patch to be set to this state before revising,
- **Awaiting upstream**:
Mostly unused as the patch is waiting for upstream actions but
is not shown in the default list, which means it is easy to
- **Superseded**:
A revised version of the patch has been submitted.
- **Deferred**:
Used mostly during freeze periods before releases, to temporarily
hide patches that cannot be merged during a freeze.
Note, that in the default listing, only patches in *New* or *Under review* are
There is also a command line interface to Patchwork called `pwclient`, see
for links where to get it and the sample `.pwclientrc` for Wayland.
Once submitted to GitLab, your patches will be reviewed by the Wayland
development team on GitLab. Review may be entirely positive and result in your
code landing instantly, in which case, great! You're done. However, we may ask
you to make some revisions: fixing some bugs we've noticed, working to a
slightly different design, or adding documentation and tests.
If you do get asked to revise the patches, please bear in mind the notes above.
You should use `git rebase -i` to make revisions, so that your patches follow
the clear linear split documented above. Following that split makes it easier
for reviewers to understand your work, and to verify that the code you're
submitting is correct.
A common request is to split single large patch into multiple patches. This can
happen, for example, if when adding a new feature you notice a bug elsewhere
which you need to fix to progress. Separating these changes into separate
commits will allow us to verify and land the bugfix quickly, pushing part of
your work for the good of everyone, whilst revision and discussion continues on
the larger feature part. It also allows us to direct you towards reviewers who
best understand the different areas you are working on.
When you have made any requested changes, please rebase the commits, verify
that they still individually look good, then force-push your new branch to
GitLab. This will update the merge request and notify everyone subscribed to
your merge request, so they can review it again.
There are also
[many GitLab CLI clients](,
if you prefer to avoid the web interface. It may be difficult to follow review
comments without using the web interface though, so we do recommend using this
to go through the review process, even if you use other clients to track the
list of available patches.
Coding style
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment