|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +title: SIG practices for approver and maintainers |
| 3 | +linkTitle: SIG practices |
| 4 | +description: |
| 5 | + Learn how approvers and maintainers manage issues and contributions. |
| 6 | +weight: 999 |
| 7 | +cSpell:ignore: chalin Comms docsy onboarded |
| 8 | +--- |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +This pages includes guidelines and some common practices used by approvers and |
| 11 | +maintainers. |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +## Onboarding |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +If a contributor steps up to take on a role with more responsibility towards the |
| 16 | +documentation (approver, maintainer) they will be onboarded by existing |
| 17 | +approvers and maintainers: |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +- They are added to the `docs-approvers` (or `docs-maintainers`) group. |
| 20 | +- They are added to the `#otel-comms` and `#otel-maintainers` and private |
| 21 | + in-team slack channels. |
| 22 | +- They are asked to enroll for the calendar invites for |
| 23 | + [SIG Comms meeting](https://groups.google.com/a/opentelemetry.io/g/calendar-comms) |
| 24 | + and |
| 25 | + [maintainers meeting](https://groups.google.com/a/opentelemetry.io/g/calendar-maintainer-meeting). |
| 26 | +- They are asked to verify that the current meeting time for SIG Comms works for |
| 27 | + them and if not to collaborate with existing approvers and maintainers to find |
| 28 | + a time that suits everyone. |
| 29 | +- They are asked to review the different resources available for contributors: |
| 30 | + - [Community Resources](https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/), |
| 31 | + especially the document around |
| 32 | + [Community Membership](https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/blob/main/community-membership.md) |
| 33 | + and the |
| 34 | + [social media guide](https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/blob/main/social-media-guide.md). |
| 35 | + - [Contributing Guidelines](/docs/contributing) As part of this, they will |
| 36 | + review those documents and provide feedback for improving them via issues or |
| 37 | + pull requests. |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +Additional valuable resources to review are |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +- [Hugo documentation](https://gohugo.io/documentation/) |
| 42 | +- [Docsy documentation](https://www.docsy.dev/docs/) |
| 43 | +- [Marketing guidelines](/community/marketing-guidelines/), including the Linux |
| 44 | + Foundation’s branding and |
| 45 | + [trademark usage guidelines](https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage). |
| 46 | + Those are especially valuable when reviewing entries to the registry, |
| 47 | + integrations, vendors, adopters or distributions. |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +## Collaboration |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +- Approvers and maintainers have different work schedules and circumstances. |
| 52 | + That's why all communication is assumed to be asynchronous and they should not |
| 53 | + feel obligated to reply outside of their normal schedule. |
| 54 | +- When an approver or maintainer won't be available to contribute for an |
| 55 | + extended period of time (more than a few days or a week) or won't be available |
| 56 | + in that period of time, they should communicate this using the |
| 57 | + [#otel-comms](https://cloud-native.slack.com/archives/C02UN96HZH6) channel and |
| 58 | + updating the GitHub status. |
| 59 | +- Approver and maintainer adhere to the |
| 60 | + [OTel Code of Conduct](https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/?tab=coc-ov-file#opentelemetry-community-code-of-conduct) |
| 61 | + and the [Community Values](/community/mission/#community-values). They are |
| 62 | + friendly and helpful towards contributors. In the case of a conflict, |
| 63 | + misunderstanding or any other kind of situation that makes an |
| 64 | + approver/maintainer feel uncomfortable they can step back from a conversation, |
| 65 | + issue or PR and ask another approver/maintainer to step in. |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +## Code reviews |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +### General |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +- If the PR branch is `out-of-date with the base branch`, they do not need to be |
| 72 | + updated continuously: every update triggers all the PR CI checks to be run! |
| 73 | + It's often enough to update them before merging. |
| 74 | +- A PR by non-maintainers should **never** update git sub modules. This happens |
| 75 | + by accident from time to time. Let the PR author know that they should not |
| 76 | + worry about it, we will fix this before merging, but in the future they should |
| 77 | + make sure that they work from an up-to-date fork. |
| 78 | +- If the contributor is having trouble signing the CLA or used the wrong email |
| 79 | + by mistake in one of their commits, ask them to fix the issue or rebase the |
| 80 | + pull request. Worst case scenario, close and re-open the PR to trigger a new |
| 81 | + CLA check. |
| 82 | +- Words unknown to cspell should be added to the cspell ignore list per page by |
| 83 | + PR authors. Only approvers and maintainers will add commonly used terms to the |
| 84 | + global list. |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +### Co-owned PRs |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +PRs with changes to documentation co-owned by a SIG (collector, demo, |
| 89 | +language-specific...) should aim for two approvals: one by a docs approver and |
| 90 | +one by a SIG approver: |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +- Doc approver label such PRs with `sig:<name>` and tag the SIG `-approvers` |
| 93 | + group on that PR. |
| 94 | +- After a doc approver has reviewed and approved the PR, they can add the label |
| 95 | + [`sig-approval-missing`](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io/labels/sig-approval-missing). |
| 96 | + This signals to the SIG that they need to handle the PR. |
| 97 | +- If no SIG approval is given within a certain grace period (two weeks in |
| 98 | + general, but may be less in urgent cases), docs maintainer may use their own |
| 99 | + judgement to merge that PR. |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +### PRs from bots |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +PRs created by bots can be merged by the following practice: |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +- PRs that auto-update versions in the registry can be fixed, approved and |
| 106 | + merged immediately. |
| 107 | +- PRs that auto-update the versions of SDKs, zero-code instrumentations or the |
| 108 | + collector can be approved and merged except the corresponding SIG signals that |
| 109 | + merging should be postponed. |
| 110 | +- PRs that auto-update the version of any specification often require updates to |
| 111 | + scripts for the CI checks to pass. In that case |
| 112 | + [@chalin](https://github.com/chalin/) will handle the PR. Otherwise those PRs |
| 113 | + can as well be approved and merged except the corresponding SIG signals that |
| 114 | + merging should be postponed. |
| 115 | + |
| 116 | +### Translation PRs |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +PRs with changes to translations should aim for two approvals: one by a docs |
| 119 | +approver and one by a translation approver. Similar practices apply as suggested |
| 120 | +for the co-owned PRs. |
| 121 | + |
| 122 | +### Merging PRs |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | +The following workflow can be applied by maintainers to merge PRs: |
| 125 | + |
| 126 | +- Make sure that a PR has all approvals and all CI checks pass. |
| 127 | +- If the branch is out-of-date, rebase update it via the GitHub UI. |
| 128 | +- The update will trigger all CI checks to run again, wait for them to pass or |
| 129 | + execute a script like the following to make it happen in the background: |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | + ```shell |
| 132 | + export PR=<ID OF THE PR>; gh pr checks ${PR} --watch && gh pr merge ${PR} --squash |
| 133 | + ``` |
0 commit comments