docs: Provide details on review process for new submissions

Signed-off-by: Kevin O'Connor <[email protected]>

docs/CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -1,18 +1,273 @@
 # Contributing to Klipper
 
-Thank you for contributing to Klipper! Please take a moment to read
-this document.
+Thank you for contributing to Klipper! This document describes the
+process for contributing changes to Klipper.
 
-## Creating a new issue
+Please see the [contact page](Contact.md) for information on reporting
+an issue or for details on contacting the developers.
 
-Please see the [contact page](Contact.md) for information on creating
-an issue.
+## Overview of Contribution Process
 
-## Submitting a pull request
+Contributions to Klipper generally follow a high-level process:
 
-Contributions of Code and documentation are managed through github
-pull requests.  Each commit should have a commit message formatted
-similar to the following:
+1. A submitter starts by creating a
+   [GitHub Pull Request](https://github.com/Klipper3d/klipper/pulls)
+   when a submission is ready for widespread deployment.
+2. When a [reviewer](#reviewers) is available to
+   [review](#what-to-expect-in-a-review) the submission, they will
+   assign themselves to the Pull Request on GitHub. The goal of the
+   review is to look for defects and to check that the submission
+   follows documented guidelines.
+3. After a successful review, the reviewer will "approve the review"
+   on GitHub and a [maintainer](#reviewers) will commit the change to
+   the Klipper master branch.
+
+When working on enhancements, consider starting (or contributing to) a
+topic on [Klipper Discourse](Contact.md). An ongoing discussion on the
+forum can improve visibility of development work and may attract
+others interested in testing new work.
+
+## What to expect in a review
+
+Contributions to Klipper are reviewed before merging. The primary goal
+of the review process is to check for defects and to check that the
+submission follows guidelines specified in the Klipper documentation.
+
+It is understood that there are many ways to accomplish a task; it is
+not the intent of the review to discuss the "best" implementation.
+Where possible, review discussions focused on facts and measurements
+are preferable.
+
+The majority of submissions will result in feedback from a review. Be
+prepared to obtain feedback, provide further details, and to update
+the submission if needed.
+
+Common things a reviewer will look for:
+
+1. Is the submission free of defects and is it ready to be widely
+   deployed?
+
+   Submitters are expected to test their changes prior to submission.
+   The reviewers look for errors, but they don't, in general, test
+   submissions. An accepted submission is often deployed to thousands
+   of printers within a few weeks of acceptance. Quality of
+   submissions is therefore considered a priority.
+
+   The main [Klipper3d/klipper](https://github.com/Klipper3d/klipper)
+   GitHub repository does not accept experimental work. Submitters
+   should perform experimentation, debugging, and testing in their own
+   repositories. The [Klipper Discourse](Contact.md) server is a good
+   place to raise awareness of new work and to find users interested
+   in providing real-world feedback.
+
+   Submissions must pass all [regression test cases](Debugging.md).
+
+   Code submissions should not contain excessive debugging code,
+   debugging options, nor run-time debug logging.
+
+   Comments in code submissions should focus on enhancing code
+   maintenance. Submissions should not contain "commented out code"
+   nor excessive comments describing past implementations. There
+   should not be excessive "todo" comments.
+
+   Updates to documentation should not declare that they are a "work
+   in progress".
+
+2. Is the copyright of the submission clear, non-gratuitous, and
+   compatible?
+
+   New C files and Python files should have an unambiguous copyright
+   statement. See the existing files for the preferred format.
+   Declaring a copyright on an existing file when making minor changes
+   to that file is discouraged.
+
+   Code taken from 3rd party sources must be compatible with the
+   Klipper license (GNU GPLv3). Large 3rd party code additions should
+   be added to the `lib/` directory (and follow the format described
+   in [lib/README](../lib/README)).
+
+   Submitters must provide a
+   [Signed-off-by line](#format-of-commit-messages) using their full
+   real name. It indicates the submitter agrees with the
+   [developer certificate of origin](developer-certificate-of-origin).
+
+3. Does the submission follow guidelines specified in the Klipper
+   documentation?
+
+   In particular, code should follow the guidelines in
+   [Code_Overview.md](Code_Overview.md) and config files should follow
+   the guidelines in [Example_Configs.md](Example_Configs.md).
+
+4. Is the Klipper documentation updated to reflect new changes?
+
+   At a minimum, the reference documentation must be updated with
+   corresponding changes to the code:
+   * All commands and command parameters must be documented in
+     [G-Codes.md](G-Codes.md).
+   * All user facing modules and their config parameters must be
+     documented in [Config_Reference.md](Config_Reference.md).
+   * All exported "status variables" must be documented in
+     [Status_Reference.md](Status_Reference.md).
+   * All new "webhooks" and their parameters must be documented in
+     [API_Server.md](API_Server.md).
+   * Any change that makes a non-backwards compatible change to a
+     command or config file setting must be documented in
+     [Config_Changes.md](Config_Changes.md).
+
+   New documents should be added to [Overview.md](Overview.md) and be
+   added to the website index
+   [docs/_klipper3d/mkdocs.yml](../docs/_klipper3d/mkdocs.yml).
+
+5. Are commits well formed, address a single topic per commit, and
+   independent?
+
+   Commit messages should follow the
+   [preferred format](#format-of-commit-messages).
+
+   Commits must not have a merge conflict. New additions to the
+   Klipper master branch are always done via a "rebase" or "squash and
+   rebase". It is generally not necessary for submitters to re-merge
+   their submission on every update to the Klipper master repository.
+   However, if there is a merge conflict, then submitters are
+   recommended to use `git rebase` to address the conflict.
+
+   Each commit should address a single high-level change. Large
+   changes should be broken up into multiple independent commits. Each
+   commit should "stand on its own" so that tools like `git bisect`
+   and `git revert` work reliably.
+
+   Whitespace changes should not be mixed with functional changes. In
+   general, gratuitous whitespace changes are not accepted unless they
+   are from the established "owner" of the code being modified.
+
+6. Does the submission provide a "high impact" benefit to real-world
+   users performing real-world tasks?
+
+   Reviewers need to identify, at least in their own minds, roughly
+   "who the target audience is", a rough scale of "the size of that
+   audience", the "benefit" they will obtain, how the "benefit is
+   measured", and the "results of those measurement tests". In most
+   cases this will be obvious to both the submitter and the reviewer,
+   and it is not explicitly stated during a review.
+
+   Submissions to the master Klipper branch are expected to have a
+   noteworthy target audience. As a general "rule of thumb",
+   submissions should target a user base of at least a 100 real-world
+   users.
+
+   If a reviewer asks for details on the "benefit" of a submission,
+   please don't consider it criticism. Being able to understand the
+   real-world benefits of a change is a natural part of a review.
+
+   When discussing benefits it is preferable to discuss "facts and
+   measurements" instead of "opinions and theories". In general,
+   reviewers are not looking for responses of the form "this
+   submission may improve quality because of ...", nor are they
+   looking for responses of the form "someone may find option X
+   useful", nor are they looking for responses of the form "this
+   submission adds a feature that firmware X implements". Instead, it
+   is generally preferable to discuss details on how the quality
+   improvement was measured and what were the results of those
+   measurements - for example, "tests on Acme X1000 printers show
+   improved corners as seen in picture ...", or for example "print
+   time of real-world object X on a Foomatic X900 printer went from 4
+   hours to 3.5 hours". It is understood that testing of this type can
+   take significant time and effort. Some of Klipper's most notable
+   features took years of discussion, rework, testing, and
+   documentation prior to being merged into the master branch.
+
+   All new modules, config options, commands, command parameters, and
+   documents should have "high impact". We do not want to burden users
+   with options that they can not reasonably configure nor do we want
+   to burden them with options that don't provide a notable benefit.
+
+   A reviewer may ask for clarification on how a user is to configure
+   an option - an ideal response will contain details on the process -
+   for example, "users of the MegaX500 are expected to set option X to
+   99.3 while users of the Elite100Y are expected to calibrate option
+   X using procedure ...".
+
+   If the goal of an option is to make the code more modular then
+   prefer using code constants instead of user facing config options.
+
+   New modules, new options, and new parameters should not provide
+   similar functionality to existing modules - if the differences are
+   arbitrary than it's preferable to utilize the existing system or
+   refactor the existing code.
+
+Klipper does not implement a strict "coding style guide", but
+modifications to existing code should follow the high-level code flow,
+code indentation style, and format of that existing code. Submissions
+of new modules and systems have more flexibility in coding style, but
+it is preferable for that new code to follow an internally consistent
+style and to generally follow industry wide coding norms.
+
+It is not a goal of a review to discuss "better implementations".
+However, if a reviewer struggles to understand the implementation of a
+submission, then they may ask for changes to make the implementation
+more transparent. In particular, if reviewers can not convince
+themselves that a submission is free of defects then changes may be
+necessary.
+
+As part of a review, a reviewer may create an alternate Pull Request
+for a topic. This may be done to avoid excessive "back and forth" on
+minor procedural items and thus streamline the submission process. It
+may also be done because the discussion inspires a reviewer to build
+an alternative implementation. Both situations are a normal result of
+a review and should not be considered criticism of the original
+submission.
+
+### Helping with reviews
+
+We appreciate help with reviews! It is not necessary to be a
+[listed reviewer](#reviewers) to perform a review. Submitters of
+GitHub Pull Requests are also encouraged to review their own
+submissions.
+
+To help with a review, follow the steps outlined in
+[what to expect in a review](#what-to-expect-in-a-review) to verify
+the submission. After completing the review, add a comment to the
+GitHub Pull Request with your findings. If the submission passes the
+review then please state that explicitly in the comment - for example
+something like "I reviewed this change according to the steps in the
+CONTRIBUTING document and everything looks good to me". If unable to
+complete some steps in the review then please explicitly state which
+steps were reviewed and which steps were not reviewed - for example
+something like "I didn't check the code for defects, but I reviewed
+everything else in the CONTRIBUTING document and it looks good".
+
+We also appreciate testing of submissions. If the code was tested then
+please add a comment to the GitHub Pull Request with the results of
+your test - success or failure. Please explicitly state that the code
+was tested and the results - for example something like "I tested this
+code on my Acme900Z printer with a vase print and the results were
+good".
+
+### Reviewers
+
+The Klipper "reviewers" are:
+
+| Name                   | GitHub Id         | Areas of interest |
+| ---------------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- |
+| Dmitry Butyugin        | @dmbutyugin       | Input shaping, resonance testing, kinematics |
+| Eric Callahan          | @Arksine          | Bed leveling, MCU flashing |
+| Kevin O'Connor         | @KevinOConnor     | Core motion system, Micro-controller code |
+| Paul McGowan           | @mental405        | Configuration files, documentation |
+
+Please do not "ping" any of the reviewers and please do not direct
+submissions at them. All of the reviewers monitor the forums and PRs,
+and will take on reviews when they have time to.
+
+The Klipper "maintainers" are:
+
+| Name                   | GitHub name       |
+| ---------------------- | ----------------- |
+| Kevin O'Connor         | @KevinOConnor     |
+
+## Format of commit messages
+
+Each commit should have a commit message formatted similar to the
+following:
 
 ```
 module: Capitalized, short (50 chars or less) summary
@@ -29,6 +284,12 @@ Further paragraphs come after blank lines..
 Signed-off-by: My Name <[email protected]>
 ```
 
+In the above example, `module` should be the name of a file or
+directory in the repository (without a file extension). For example,
+`clocksync: Fix typo in pause() call at connect time`. The purpose of
+specifying a module name in the commit message is to help provide
+context for the commit comments.
+
 It is important to have a "Signed-off-by" line on each commit - it
 certifies that you agree to the
 [developer certificate of origin](developer-certificate-of-origin). It