RFR: 8332313: Update code review guidelines [v2]

[Nir Lisker]

On Fri, 17 May 2024 14:10:43 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Update the code review guidelines for JavaFX.
>> 
>> The JavaFX [CONTRIBUTING](https://github.com/kevinrushforth/jfx/blob/8332313-contributing/CONTRIBUTING.md) guidelines includes guidance for creating, reviewing, and integrating changes to JavaFX, along with a pointer to a [Code Review Policies](https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/OpenJFX/Code+Reviews) Wiki page.
>> 
>> This PR updates these guidelines to improve the quality of reviews, with a goal of improving JavaFX and decreasing the chance of introducing a serious regression or other critical bug.
>> 
>> The source branch has three commits:
>> 1. Converts the Code Review Policies Wiki page to a [README-code-reviews.md](https://github.com/kevinrushforth/jfx/blob/8332313-contributing/README-code-reviews.md) file in the repo and updates hyperlinks to the new location.
>> 2. Update `README-code-reviews.md` with new guidelines
>> 3. Update `CONTRIBUTING.md` to highlight important requirements  (and minor changes to `README-code-reviews.md`)
>> 
>> Commit 1 is content neutral, so it might be helpful for reviewers to look at the changes starting from the second commit.
>> 
>> The updates are:
>> 
>> * In the Overview section, add a list of items for Reviewers, PR authors, and sponsoring Committers to verify prior to integration
>> * Create a "Guidelines for reviewing a PR" subsection of the Code review policies section
>> * Create a "Before you integrate or sponsor a PR" subsection of the Code review policies section
>> * Update the `CONTRIBUTING.md` page to highlight important requirements
>
> Kevin Rushforth has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 20 additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Wait for re-review if you've pushed a change addressing a substantive comment
>  - Typo + remove sentence that invites reformatting PRs
>  - Wording changes, added example of API addition
>  - Formatting
>  - Add item about checking the target branch
>  - Remove trailing period from previous
>  - Minor changes regarding syncing from upstream master
>  - Clarify that GHA tests might fail for a reason unrelated to the PR
>  - Fix typo
>    
>    "but It" --> "but it"
>  - Remove bullet about checking the commit message (Skara already checks)
>  - ... and 10 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/compare/1b088e5b...9cf7f920

README-code-reviews.md line 69:

> 67: * Carefully consider the risk of regression
> 68: * Carefully consider any compatibility concerns
> 69: * Check whether it adds any new public or protected API, even implicitly (such as a public method that overrides a protected method, or a class that is moved from a non-exported to an exported package); if it does, indicate that it needs a CSR

I think that if it looks like an oversight (the author forgot about the default constructor), it's better to indicate that than to indicate that the PR needs a CSR. Maybe something like:
"if it does and it doesn't look like an oversight, indicate that it needs a CSR"

README-code-reviews.md line 72:

> 70: * Focus first on substantive comments rather than stylistic comments
> 71: * Check whether there is an automated test; if not, ask for one, if it is feasible
> 72: * Make sure that the PR has executed the GitHub Actions (GHA) tests; if they aren't being run, ask the PR author to enable GHA workflows; if the test fails on some platforms, check whether it is a real bug (sometimes a job fails becau se of GHA infrastucture changes or we see a spurious GHA failure)

becau se -> because

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1455#discussion_r1605152176
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1455#discussion_r1605147892