Code reviews are mandatory for every merge request, you should get familiar and follow our Code Review Guidelines. Because of the recognized criticality of building a community of contributors we put a high priority on ensuring community contributions receive a swift response to their submissions including a first-response SLO.
These guidelines also describe who would need to review, approve and merge your, or a community member's, merge request.
All GitLab engineers can, and are encouraged to, perform code review on merge requests of colleagues and community contributors. If you want to review merge requests, you can wait until someone assigns you one, but you are also more than welcome to browse the list of open merge requests and leave any feedback or questions you may have.
You can also help community contributors get their merge requests ready, by becoming a Merge Request Coach.
Note that while all engineers can review all merge requests, the ability to accept merge requests is restricted to maintainers.
Maintainers are GitLab engineers who are experts at code review, know the GitLab product and code base very well, and are empowered to accept merge requests in one or several GitLab Engineering Projects.
Every project has at least one maintainer, but most have multiple, and some projects (like GitLab CE and GitLab EE) have separate maintainers for frontend and backend.
Great engineers are often also great reviewers, but code review is a skill in and of itself, and not every engineer, no matter their seniority, will have had the same opportunities to hone that skill. It's also important to note that a big part of being a good maintainer comes from knowing the existing product and code base extremely well, which lets them spot inconsistencies, edge cases, or non-obvious interactions with other features that would otherwise be missed easily.
To protect and ensure the quality of the code base and the product as a whole, people become maintainers only once they have convincingly demonstrated that their reviewing skills are at a comparable level to those of existing maintainers.
This applies specifically to backend and frontend maintainers. Other areas (database, etc.) may have separate processes.
As a reviewer, a great way to improve your reviewing skills is to participate in MRs. Add your review notes, pass them on to maintainers, and follow the conversation until the MR is closed. If a comment doesn't make sense to you, ask the commenter to explain further. If you missed something in your review, figure out why you didn't see it, and note it down for next time.
We have two guidelines for maintainership, but no concrete rules:
Apart from that, someone can be considered as a maintainer when both:
Once those are done, they should:
If the existing maintainers of the relevant engineering group e.g., backend, do not have significant objections, and if at least half of them agree that the reviewer is indeed ready, we've got ourselves a new maintainer!
If there are significant objections, the maintainers who raise the objections should actively work with the maintainer nominee's manager to develop a plan on how to resolve the objections.
The existing maintainers of the relevant engineering group will also raise any areas for growth on the merge request. If there are many gaps, the reviewer will need to address these before asking for reconsideration.
In order to help grow the maintainer base with the team, we allow for 'trainee maintainers'. These are reviewers who have shown a specific interest in becoming a maintainer, and are actively working towards that goal.
Anyone may nominate themselves as a trainee by opening a tracking issue using the Trainee backend maintainer template. It's normally a good idea to check with at least one maintainer or your manager before creating the issue, but it's not required.
Trainees should feel free to discuss process or progress with their manager or any maintainer, at any time.
If you'd like to work towards becoming a maintainer, discuss it in your regular 1:1 meetings with your manager. They will help you to identify areas to work on before following the process above.
In order to ensure swift feedback to contributors ready-to-review code, we maintain a
first-response Service-level Objective (SLO). The SLO is defined as:
- first-response SLO = (time when first response is provided) - (time community contribution MR is submitted and no longer marked WIP) < 2 business days