Merge branch 'master' into develop

1 files changed, 148 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/dev/git.md b/docs/dev/git.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..b747ff20c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/dev/git.md
@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+Some notes on how we use git
+============================
+
+On keeping the commit history clean
+-----------------------------------
+
+In an ideal world, our git commit history would be a linear progression of
+commits each of which contains a single change building on what came
+before. Here, by way of an arbitrary example, is the top of `git log --graph
+b2dba0607`:
+
+<img src="git/clean.png" alt="clean git graph" width="500px">
+
+Note how the commit comment explains clearly what is changing and why. Also
+note the *absence* of merge commits, as well as the absence of commits called
+things like (to pick a few culprits):
+[“pep8”](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/commit/84691da6c), [“fix broken
+test”](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/commit/474810d9d),
+[“oops”](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/commit/c9d72e457),
+[“typo”](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/commit/836358823), or [“Who's
+the president?”](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/commit/707374d5d).
+
+There are a number of reasons why keeping a clean commit history is a good
+thing:
+
+ * From time to time, after a change lands, it turns out to be necessary to
+   revert it, or to backport it to a release branch. Those operations are
+   *much* easier when the change is contained in a single commit.
+
+ * Similarly, it's much easier to answer questions like “is the fix for
+   `/publicRooms` on the release branch?” if that change consists of a single
+   commit.
+
+ * Likewise: “what has changed on this branch in the last week?” is much
+   clearer without merges and “pep8” commits everywhere.
+
+ * Sometimes we need to figure out where a bug got introduced, or some
+   behaviour changed. One way of doing that is with `git bisect`: pick an
+   arbitrary commit between the known good point and the known bad point, and
+   see how the code behaves. However, that strategy fails if the commit you
+   chose is the middle of someone's epic branch in which they broke the world
+   before putting it back together again.
+
+One counterargument is that it is sometimes useful to see how a PR evolved as
+it went through review cycles. This is true, but that information is always
+available via the GitHub UI (or via the little-known [refs/pull
+namespace](https://help.github.com/en/github/collaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally)).
+
+
+Of course, in reality, things are more complicated than that. We have release
+branches as well as `develop` and `master`, and we deliberately merge changes
+between them. Bugs often slip through and have to be fixed later. That's all
+fine: this not a cast-iron rule which must be obeyed, but an ideal to aim
+towards.
+
+Merges, squashes, rebases: wtf?
+-------------------------------
+
+Ok, so that's what we'd like to achieve. How do we achieve it?
+
+The TL;DR is: when you come to merge a pull request, you *probably* want to
+“squash and merge”:
+
+![squash and merge](git/squash.png).
+
+(This applies whether you are merging your own PR, or that of another
+contributor.)
+
+“Squash and merge”<sup id="a1">[1](#f1)</sup> takes all of the changes in the
+PR, and bundles them into a single commit. GitHub gives you the opportunity to
+edit the commit message before you confirm, and normally you should do so,
+because the default will be useless (again: `* woops typo` is not a useful
+thing to keep in the historical record).
+
+The main problem with this approach comes when you have a series of pull
+requests which build on top of one another: as soon as you squash-merge the
+first PR, you'll end up with a stack of conflicts to resolve in all of the
+others. In general, it's best to avoid this situation in the first place by
+trying not to have multiple related PRs in flight at the same time. Still,
+sometimes that's not possible and doing a regular merge is the lesser evil.
+
+Another occasion in which a regular merge makes more sense is a PR where you've
+deliberately created a series of commits each of which makes sense in its own
+right. For example: [a PR which gradually propagates a refactoring operation
+through the codebase](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/6837), or [a
+PR which is the culmination of several other
+PRs](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/5987). In this case the ability
+to figure out when a particular change/bug was introduced could be very useful.
+
+Ultimately: **this is not a hard-and-fast-rule**. If in doubt, ask yourself “do
+each of the commits I am about to merge make sense in their own right”, but
+remember that we're just doing our best to balance “keeping the commit history
+clean” with other factors.
+
+Git branching model
+-------------------
+
+A [lot](https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/)
+[of](http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html)
+[words](https://www.endoflineblog.com/gitflow-considered-harmful) have been
+written in the past about git branching models (no really, [a
+lot](https://martinfowler.com/articles/branching-patterns.html)). I tend to
+think the whole thing is overblown. Fundamentally, it's not that
+complicated. Here's how we do it.
+
+Let's start with a picture:
+
+![branching model](git/branches.jpg)
+
+It looks complicated, but it's really not. There's one basic rule: *anyone* is
+free to merge from *any* more-stable branch to *any* less-stable branch at
+*any* time<sup id="a2">[2](#f2)</sup>. (The principle behind this is that if a
+change is good enough for the more-stable branch, then it's also good enough go
+put in a less-stable branch.)
+
+Meanwhile, merging (or squashing, as per the above) from a less-stable to a
+more-stable branch is a deliberate action in which you want to publish a change
+or a set of changes to (some subset of) the world: for example, this happens
+when a PR is landed, or as part of our release process.
+
+So, what counts as a more- or less-stable branch? A little reflection will show
+that our active branches are ordered thus, from more-stable to less-stable:
+
+ * `master` (tracks our last release).
+ * `release-vX.Y.Z` (the branch where we prepare the next release)<sup
+   id="a3">[3](#f3)</sup>.
+ * PR branches which are targeting the release.
+ * `develop` (our "mainline" branch containing our bleeding-edge).
+ * regular PR branches.
+
+The corollary is: if you have a bugfix that needs to land in both
+`release-vX.Y.Z` *and* `develop`, then you should base your PR on
+`release-vX.Y.Z`, get it merged there, and then merge from `release-vX.Y.Z` to
+`develop`. (If a fix lands in `develop` and we later need it in a
+release-branch, we can of course cherry-pick it, but landing it in the release
+branch first helps reduce the chance of annoying conflicts.)
+
+---
+
+<b id="f1">[1]</b>: “Squash and merge” is GitHub's term for this
+operation. Given that there is no merge involved, I'm not convinced it's the
+most intuitive name. [^](#a1)
+
+<b id="f2">[2]</b>: Well, anyone with commit access.[^](#a2)
+
+<b id="f3">[3]</b>: Very, very occasionally (I think this has happened once in
+the history of Synapse), we've had two releases in flight at once. Obviously,
+`release-v1.2.3` is more-stable than `release-v1.3.0`. [^](#a3)