[Openvpn-devel,v3] Start a new document CODE_CHECKLIST
Commit Message
From: Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.com>
This is intended to document in one place all the policies
applicable to submitted changes. This serves multiple
purposes:
* Make it clearer to submitters what is required of them
* Make it clearer what to consider automating when developing
(be it by writing scripts or by instructing an AI agent)
* Reduce the bus factor of the project by reducing the amount
of things only stored in Gert's head
Change-Id: Ib123b7bf58317a1be5af1a1d45decb8f31f2ec68
Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.com>
Acked-by: Razvan Cojocaru <razvanc@mailbox.org>
Gerrit URL: https://gerrit.openvpn.net/c/openvpn/+/1776
---
This change was reviewed on Gerrit and approved by at least one
developer. I request to merge it to master.
Gerrit URL: https://gerrit.openvpn.net/c/openvpn/+/1776
This mail reflects revision 3 of this Change.
Acked-by according to Gerrit (reflected above):
Razvan Cojocaru <razvanc@mailbox.org>
Comments
Complete documentation on what we expect from committers and maintainers
is definitely a big plus. I'm keeping it in "master" only, as that is
really where the development happens.
I've read through it and it all makes sense - except that I missed the
typos that the Kernel AI spotted (well done), and thanks to Razvan for
the more thorough review.
Your patch has been applied to the master branch.
commit cc7950b4188b6776f637a5abc29b45182df682a6
Author: Frank Lichtenheld
Date: Mon Aug 17 18:18:26 2026 +0200
Start a new document CODE_CHECKLIST
Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.com>
Acked-by: Razvan Cojocaru <razvanc@mailbox.org>
Gerrit URL: https://gerrit.openvpn.net/c/openvpn/+/1776
Message-Id: <20260817161831.8322-1-gert@greenie.muc.de>
URL: https://www.mail-archive.com/openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38465.html
Signed-off-by: Gert Doering <gert@greenie.muc.de>
--
kind regards,
Gert Doering
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+# Checklist for Contributions
+
+## Introduction
+
+This documents all policies applied to any change that should be applied
+in this repository. It is separated in two parts. The first part describes
+the checklist that any submitter should apply. The second part describes
+the checklist that integrators need to apply before actually merging the
+change.
+
+In general the Integrator Checklist does imply that all checks from the
+Submitter Checklist have been passed. They are not repeated.
+
+## Submitter Checklist
+
+### Commit message
+
+* Does the commit message accurately describe the change?
+* Does it end with the line `Signed-off-by: My Name <my@email.com>` ?
+
+### Automated tests
+
+* Did the change pass a local `make` build?
+* Did the change pass a local run of `make check`?
+* Have you verified the code formatting with clang-format?
+* Is the code covered by Unit Tests? If not, have you considered adding
+ a new Unit Test?
+
+### Change-specific checks
+
+* Does your change require adaptions on both server and client side
+ because it changes the wire-protocol?
+ * Did you propose a change to http://github.com/openvpn-rfc/
+ to agree on the protocol format changes?
+* Does your change add, remove, or change a config option?
+ * Have you adapted the usage text (`openvpn --help`)?
+ * Have you adapted the man page text (`man -l ./doc/openvpn.8`)?
+* Have you reviewed all code comments around code you touched to
+ check whether they need to be adapted?
+* If your change adds new files, are they added in some Makefile.am
+ statement that will make sure they up in the distributed source
+ tarballs?
+
+## Integrator Checklist
+
+### General
+
+* Is the exact code change to be merged available as an email on openvpn-devel
+ mailing list (note: this does not apply to the commit message since that needs
+ to be massaged anyway)?
+* If not, is the change to merge a trivial cherry-pick?
+
+### Commit message
+
+* Does it contain the pointer to the email on openvpn-devel?
+ This means a line `Message-Id: <actual msg id>` and a line
+ `URL: <url to mail-archive.com copy of the mail>`. If mail-archive.com
+ is not working, alternatively an URL to SourceForge's mail archive
+ is also acceptable.
+* Does it contain at least one `Acked-by` line from a known OpenVPN
+ core developer? Valid sources for `Acked-by` lines are mails on
+ the mailing list or +2 votes in Gerrit.
+* If the change is a security fix, does it contain a `CVE:` line in
+ the format `CVE: <Year>-<Number>`?
+* If the change fixes a Github issue, does it contain a line
+ `Github: OpenVPN/openvpn#<Number>`? (Other repositories might
+ also be referenced if applicable)
+* Have you considered adding a `Reported-by:` line? This is usual
+ for attribution for security issues but might be added for any
+ report where the reporter added significant value by their report.
+* If doing a cherry-pick, have you made sure to use `git cherry-pick -x`
+ to add a reference to the picked commit?
+
+#### Gerrit specific
+
+Additional checks if the change was reviewed and submitted via Gerrit.
+
+* Does it contain a correct `Gerrit URL:` line? (This is generally ensured
+ by using `gerrit-send-email.py`)
+* Is the `Change-Id:` line present and located in the last paragraph of the
+ message? (If not in the last paragraph, Gerrit will ignore it)
+
+### Automated tests
+
+* Has the change passed a full build run in buildbot? (Usually ensured via
+ Gerrit). This ensures the following points (which otherwise might need to
+ be considered separately):
+ * Build passes on multiple platforms (Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, macOS, other BSDs)
+ * Build passes with multiple compilers (GCC, Clang, MSVC, GCC MinGW)
+ * Build passes with multiple configurations (`--enable-small`, `--disable-management`,
+ etc.)
+ * Build passes with multiple versions of multiple SSL libraries (OpenSSL, mbedTLS)
+ * Unit tests pass in all these settings
+ * t\_server\_null, t\_client pass in all these settings
+ * t\_server passes
+ * Verified clang-format code formatting
+* If buildbot ignored the change that usually means that it did not match the
+ file match list (e.g. only changes in `.github/`). Consider whether that seems
+ correct.
+* Has the change passed a GHA run?
+* Do any of the tests actually exercise the code? If not, has someone other than the
+ submitter done any manual verification?
+
+### Backports
+
+* Is it clear to which branches the change should be applied?
+ * If it is a security fix, it should be applied to all branches that are
+ affected and that are not "unsupported"
+ (cf. https://community.openvpn.net/Pages/Supported%20versions)
+ * If it is a bugfix, it should be applied to all branches that are in
+ "Full stable support". Depending on the severity it might also be
+ applied to branches in "Old stable support".
+* Have you checked for all branches whether a trivial cherry-pick is
+ possible or whether a backport is required? If a backport is required
+ have you communicated this to the submitter?
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
.gitignore \
.gitattributes \
CONTRIBUTING.rst \
+ CODE_CHECKLIST.md \
PORTS \
README.cmake.md \
README.dco.md \