Merge branch 'master' into develop

5 files changed, 152 insertions, 4 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)
diff --git a/docs/dev/git/branches.jpg b/docs/dev/git/branches.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..715ecc8cd0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/dev/git/branches.jpg
Binary files differdiff --git a/docs/dev/git/clean.png b/docs/dev/git/clean.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..3accd7ccef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/dev/git/clean.png
Binary files differdiff --git a/docs/dev/git/squash.png b/docs/dev/git/squash.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..234caca3e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/dev/git/squash.png
Binary files differdiff --git a/docs/reverse_proxy.md b/docs/reverse_proxy.md
index c7222f73b9..7c300023c6 100644
--- a/docs/reverse_proxy.md
+++ b/docs/reverse_proxy.md
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ of doing so is that it means that you can expose the default https port
 (443) to Matrix clients without needing to run Synapse with root
 privileges.
 
-> **NOTE**: Your reverse proxy must not `canonicalise` or `normalise`
+**NOTE**: Your reverse proxy must not `canonicalise` or `normalise`
 the requested URI in any way (for example, by decoding `%xx` escapes).
 Beware that Apache *will* canonicalise URIs unless you specifify
 `nocanon`.
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ When setting up a reverse proxy, remember that Matrix clients and other
 Matrix servers do not necessarily need to connect to your server via the
 same server name or port. Indeed, clients will use port 443 by default,
 whereas servers default to port 8448. Where these are different, we
-refer to the 'client port' and the \'federation port\'. See [the Matrix
+refer to the 'client port' and the 'federation port'. See [the Matrix
 specification](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/server_server/latest#resolving-server-names)
 for more details of the algorithm used for federation connections, and
 [delegate.md](<delegate.md>) for instructions on setting up delegation.
@@ -28,9 +28,9 @@ Let's assume that we expect clients to connect to our server at
 `https://example.com:8448`.  The following sections detail the configuration of
 the reverse proxy and the homeserver.
 
-## Webserver configuration examples
+## Reverse-proxy configuration examples
 
-> **NOTE**: You only need one of these.
+**NOTE**: You only need one of these.
 
 ### nginx