Conversation
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
rep-2004.rst
Outdated
| Packages in this category cannot even meet the simple 'Level 4' requirements, and for that reason should not be used. | ||
| All packages should have at least a declared license or set of licenses and should include copyright statements in each file. | ||
|
|
||
| Quality Level Comparison Chart |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
one reason leaving all the written sections with the chart doesn't work is that the auto numbering makes it so the requirements' numbers don't all match level 1. for example, level 1's 2.iv is Must have Continuous Integration (CI) policy for all change requests but for level 2 the same requirement is listed as 2.ii because it doesn't have all the other requirements level 1 does. this makes the numbered rows in the chart slightly ambiguous because 4.i means different things for different levels.
this can be fixed by manually numbering requirements in the lists for 2+ to match level 1, or rearranging the requirements in level 1 so they match the order in which they're deprecated in the following levels.
didn't do any of this yet because we don't know what we're doing with the chart yet.
| #. **Change Control Process:** | ||
|
|
||
| * Documentation: | ||
| #. No explicit change control process required, but still recommended |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this one was hard to map to the chart because it's not recommending any specific step of the change control process, just the whole thing. so that would mean a ● for level 4's 2.i - 2.v, but 2.ii, 2.iii and 2.v aren't even "recommended" for levels 2 and 3. why would level 4 be more stringent than 2 and 3? so I just mapped this statement to 2.i alone but that's not really accurate
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, the point of this was "all things under change control are optional, but recommended", but it isn't precise. I'm not sure what to do here, what do you think we should do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, "all things optional, but recommended" is kinda the case for everything right? based on line 59:
While each quality level will have different requirements, it's always possible to overachieve in certain requirements even if other requirements prevent a package from moving up to the next quality level.
That doesn't mean we should put a dot in every spot on the chart though.
I guess the better question is are any of the steps highly recommended for level 4?
Levels 2 and 3 don't require or even highly recommend having DCO, a peer review policy, or documentation for all change requests.
So I think it's safe to assume what you're highly recommending is just the first point, all changes must go through a change request.
And so maybe it's a good idea to change this line to:
| #. No explicit change control process required, but still recommended | |
| #. No explicit change control process required, but it is recommended all changes occur through a change request. |
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
makes it easier to read the numbers Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
rep-2004.rst
Outdated
| * Must have a section in the repository's ``README`` which contains the "quality declaration" or links to it | ||
| * Must register with a centralized list of 'Level 1' packages, if one exists, to allow for peer review of the claim | ||
| #. Must have all code changes occur through a change request (e.g. pull request, merge request, etc.) | ||
| #. Must have `Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) <https://developercertificate.org/>`_ on pull requests |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering about the wording here, maybe it should be more like:
Must check for a
Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) <https://developercertificate.org/>_ on changes
I'm not sure?
@mjcarroll what do you think?
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
| * Must have a section in the repository's ``README`` which contains the "quality declaration" or links to it | ||
| * Must register with a centralized list of 'Level 1' packages, if one exists, to allow for peer review of the claim | ||
| #. Must have all code changes occur through a change request (e.g. pull request, merge request, etc.) | ||
| #. Must have confirmation of contributor origin (e.g. `DCO <https://developercertificate.org/>`_, CLA, etc.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wjwwood not sure if this accurately generalizes the DCO requirement
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org>
* initial commit of new rep-2004 Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org> * update my (wjwwood's) email addresses, because the rep script only allows one per person Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org> * fixup copyright/license statements Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org> * REP 2004 extras (#235) * REP 2004 extras Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * possible chart structure and license question Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * comment out chart Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * restructure and edits Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * fixed a header Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * add chart Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * q. level 3 testing in wrong order Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * level 3 3.v.a mistake Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * moved chart to be under level 1 makes it easier to read the numbers Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * wjwwood review Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * edits / chart check Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * fix python incompatibility Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * mention level 5 in specification intro; fix typos Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org> * Review revisions rep-2004 (#243) Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * Add item numbers to quality declaration template (#244) * Add item numbers to quality declaration template Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * list all requirements Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * link to requirements in chart Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * fix list indentation Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * Add security section (#247) Signed-off-by: Kyle Fazzari <kyle@canonical.com> * Update rep-2004.rst Co-Authored-By: Alejandro Hernández Cordero <ahcorde@gmail.com> * Update rep-2004.rst Co-Authored-By: Marya Belanger <marya@openrobotics.org> * Update rep-2004.rst Co-Authored-By: Kyle Fazzari <github@status.e4ward.com> * Adjusting 3.v.b requirement (#253) Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr <marya@openrobotics.org> * Optional chart symbol + "higher quality" distinction * address feedback about copyright statement requirements Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org> Co-authored-by: Marya Belanger <marya@openrobotics.org> Co-authored-by: Kyle Fazzari <github@status.e4ward.com> Co-authored-by: Alejandro Hernández Cordero <ahcorde@gmail.com>
First commit, haven't read/edited fully yet:
Signed-off-by: maryaB-osr marya@openrobotics.org