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
yourself.

This text has been copied from Weston's CONTRIBUTING.md of the 5.0.91 release
and slightly altered for Wayland.

Fixes: #49

v2: fixed two left-over mentions of Weston
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.com>
v1 Reviewed-by: Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Scott Anderson <scott.anderson@collabora.com>
Acked-by: Ian Ray <ian.ray@ge.com>
Acked-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.wayland@gmail.com>

Note that Weston uses GitLab MRs for review, not mail.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>

These should be the conventions we have been using since 1.0, written
down more accurately.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung@gmail.com>

This is what is generally expected from people who re-send patches,
whether the patches are their own or not.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung@gmail.com>

Half of the ideas came from Daniel but most of them are reworded, the
rest are my thoughts.

Mention compiler warnings specifically, and be more explicit on what
kind of code or bugs or bug fixes are acceptable or not. Clarify commit
scope.

v2: move the "In a patch series" rule to the bottom, reworded.

Cc: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung@gmail.com>

This is to avoid fighting around the letter of the guidelines. This is
not a protocol spec.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung@gmail.com>

This has been copied from
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools/tree/CONTRIBUTING?id=eccae1360d6d01e73c6af2bd97122cef708207ef
and slightly edited to better with Wayland and Weston.

The intention is to make it easier to give out commit access to new
people, let them know what is expected of them, and help the community
to grow. Hopefully this will in time improve the patch review throughput
and timeliness.

The original text was introduced in
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools/commit/CONTRIBUTING?id=0350f0e7f6a0e07281445fc3082aa70419f4aac7Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Matheus Santana <embs@cin.ufpe.br>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung@gmail.com>

This sets up the standards for patch review, and defines when a patch
can be merged. I believe these are the practises we have been using
already for a long time, now they are just written down explicitly.

It's not an exhaustive list of criteria and likely cannot ever be, but
it should give a good idea of what level of review we want to have.

It has been written in general terms, so that we can easily apply the
same text not just to Wayland, but also Weston and other projects as
necessary.

This addition is not redundant with
https://wayland.freedesktop.org/reviewing.html .

The web page is a friendly introduction and encouragement for people to
get involved. The guidelines here are more specific and aimed for people
who seek commit rights or maintainership.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Matheus Santana <embs@cin.ufpe.br>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung@gmail.com>

Format for nice viewing through Gitlab.

Conduct and Licensing were raised to first level headings as they are
not technical guidelines for contributing patches. It's nice to use the
first level headings more.

Reformat patchwork link and add Xorg patchwork link for Xwayland.

v2: Unfortunately Gitlab harcodes a tab character to mean 4 spaces, so we
cannot reasonably spell the coding style examples correctly. Hence, tab
characters have been replaced with eight spaces so that they at least
look right in both the file and through gitlab web UI.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>

Gitlab expects a CONTRIBUTING.md in the root directory, so move our
guide there.

Conversion to proper markup is a follow-up patch.
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>

All fd.o projects are now covered by the Contributor Covenant. Include a
reference to this in the Contributing doc, making it clear that we are
all expected to behave like human beings.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Yong Bakos <ybakos@humanoriented.com>
Acked-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Acked-by: Jonas Ådahl <jadahl@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@engestrom.ch>
Reviewed-by: Armin Krezović <krezovic.armin@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>

Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>

Add general guidelines for using Patchwork, as we heavily rely on it
nowadays.

v2:

- mention also Xwayland and libinput patch management
- reword "if not found in Patchwork"
- reword "Not applicable"
- mention pwclient

Cc: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: Olivier Fourdan <ofourdan@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Olivier Fourdan <ofourdan@redhat.com>

Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>

Document what we expect in terms of commit messages and coding style.
New contributors are usually unaware of this, so it is good to have a
document to point them too.