mirror of
				https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea.git
				synced 2025-10-29 10:57:44 +09:00 
			
		
		
		
	Whitespace was missing from refactoring docs metadata. backport label applied so it is included in versioned docs.
		
			
				
	
	
		
			52 lines
		
	
	
		
			2.3 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			52 lines
		
	
	
		
			2.3 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
| ---
 | |
| date: "2023-02-14T00:00:00+00:00"
 | |
| title: "Guidelines for Refactoring"
 | |
| slug: "guidelines-refactoring"
 | |
| weight: 20
 | |
| toc: false
 | |
| draft: false
 | |
| menu:
 | |
|   sidebar:
 | |
|     parent: "developers"
 | |
|     name: "Guidelines for Refactoring"
 | |
|     weight: 20
 | |
|     identifier: "guidelines-refactoring"
 | |
| ---
 | |
| 
 | |
| # Guidelines for Refactoring
 | |
| 
 | |
| **Table of Contents**
 | |
| 
 | |
| {{< toc >}}
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Background
 | |
| 
 | |
| Since the first line of code was written at Feb 12, 2014, Gitea has grown to be a large project.
 | |
| As a result, the codebase has become larger and larger. The larger the codebase is, the more difficult it is to maintain.
 | |
| A lot of outdated mechanisms exist, a lot of frameworks are mixed together, some legacy code might cause bugs and block new features.
 | |
| To make the codebase more maintainable and make Gitea better, developers should keep in mind to use modern mechanisms to refactor the old code.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This document is a collection of guidelines for refactoring the codebase.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Refactoring Suggestions
 | |
| 
 | |
| * Design more about the future, but not only resolve the current problem.
 | |
| * Reduce ambiguity, reduce conflicts, improve maintainability.
 | |
| * Describe the refactoring, for example:
 | |
|   * Why the refactoring is needed.
 | |
|   * How the legacy problems would be solved.
 | |
|   * What's the Pros/Cons of the refactoring.
 | |
| * Only do necessary changes, keep the old logic as much as possible.
 | |
| * Introduce some intermediate steps to make the refactoring easier to review, a complete refactoring plan could be done in several PRs.
 | |
| * If there is any divergence, the TOC(Technical Oversight Committee) should be involved to help to make decisions.
 | |
| * Add necessary tests to make sure the refactoring is correct.
 | |
| * Non-bug refactoring is preferred to be done at the beginning of a milestone, it would be easier to find problems before the release.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Reviewing & Merging Suggestions
 | |
| 
 | |
| * A refactoring PR shouldn't be kept open for a long time (usually 7 days), it should be reviewed as soon as possible.
 | |
| * A refactoring PR should be merged as soon as possible, it should not be blocked by other PRs.
 | |
| * If there is no objection from TOC, a refactoring PR could be merged after 7 days with one core member's approval (not the author).
 | |
| * Tolerate some dirty/hacky intermediate steps if the final result is good.
 | |
| * Tolerate some regression bugs if the refactoring is necessary, fix bugs as soon as possible.
 |