From 2b41e219975c38d457d7edd1742d7cc6ee375afc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?D=C3=ADdac=20Coll?= Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 11:13:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Replace Bitcoin by Dogecoin in CONTRIBUTING.md Change CONTRIBUTING.md from rst format to md format --- CONTRIBUTING.md | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index fc8d58d97..6c802d00d 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ -Contributing to Bitcoin Core -============================ +# Contributing to Dogecoin Core -The Bitcoin Core project operates an open contributor model where anyone is +The Dogecoin Core project operates an open contributor model where anyone is welcome to contribute towards development in the form of peer review, testing and patches. This document explains the practical process and guidelines for contributing. @@ -15,8 +14,7 @@ merging pull requests as well as a "lead maintainer" who is responsible for the release cycle, overall merging, moderation and appointment of maintainers. -Contributor Workflow --------------------- +## Contributor Workflow The codebase is maintained using the "contributor workflow" where everyone without exception contributes patch proposals using "pull requests". This @@ -94,8 +92,9 @@ At this stage one should expect comments and review from other contributors. You can add more commits to your pull request by committing them locally and pushing to your fork until you have satisfied all feedback. -Squashing Commits ---------------------------- + +## Squashing Commits + If your pull request is accepted for merging, you may be asked by a maintainer to squash and or [rebase](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase) your commits before it will be merged. The basic squashing workflow is shown below. @@ -121,8 +120,7 @@ The length of time required for peer review is unpredictable and will vary from pull request to pull request. -Pull Request Philosophy ------------------------ +## Pull Request Philosophy Patchsets should always be focused. For example, a pull request could add a feature, fix a bug, or refactor code; but not a mixture. Please also avoid super @@ -130,7 +128,7 @@ pull requests which attempt to do too much, are overly large, or overly complex as this makes review difficult. -###Features +### Features When adding a new feature, thought must be given to the long term technical debt and maintenance that feature may require after inclusion. Before proposing a new @@ -139,7 +137,7 @@ maintain it (including bug fixing). If features get orphaned with no maintainer in the future, they may be removed by the Repository Maintainer. -###Refactoring +### Refactoring Refactoring is a necessary part of any software project's evolution. The following guidelines cover refactoring pull requests for the project. @@ -154,14 +152,13 @@ Project maintainers aim for a quick turnaround on refactoring pull requests, so where possible keep them short, uncomplex and easy to verify. -"Decision Making" Process -------------------------- +## "Decision Making" Process -The following applies to code changes to the Bitcoin Core project (and related -projects such as libsecp256k1), and is not to be confused with overall Bitcoin +The following applies to code changes to the Dogecoin Core project (and related +projects such as libsecp256k1), and is not to be confused with overall Dogecoin Network Protocol consensus changes. -Whether a pull request is merged into Bitcoin Core rests with the project merge +Whether a pull request is merged into Dogecoin Core rests with the project merge maintainers and ultimately the project lead. Maintainers will take into consideration if a patch is in line with the general @@ -179,7 +176,7 @@ In general, all pull requests must: - where bugs are fixed, where possible, there should be unit tests demonstrating the bug and also proving the fix. This helps prevent regression. -Patches that change Bitcoin consensus rules are considerably more involved than +Patches that change Dogecoin consensus rules are considerably more involved than normal because they affect the entire ecosystem and so must be preceded by extensive mailing list discussions and have a numbered BIP. While each case will be different, one should be prepared to expend more time and effort than for @@ -187,7 +184,7 @@ other kinds of patches because of increased peer review and consensus building requirements. -###Peer Review +### Peer Review Anyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pull request. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well as @@ -220,19 +217,18 @@ higher in terms of discussion and peer review requirements, keeping in mind that mistakes could be very costly to the wider community. This includes refactoring of consensus critical code. -Where a patch set proposes to change the Bitcoin consensus, it must have been +Where a patch set proposes to change the Dogecoin consensus, it must have been discussed extensively on the mailing list and IRC, be accompanied by a widely discussed BIP and have a generally widely perceived technical consensus of being a worthwhile change based on the judgement of the maintainers. -Release Policy --------------- +## Release Policy -The project leader is the release manager for each Bitcoin Core release. +The project leader is the release manager for each Dogecoin Core release. -Copyright ---------- + +## Copyright By contributing to this repository, you agree to license your work under the MIT license unless specified otherwise in `contrib/debian/copyright` or at