- Overview
- Current Maintainers
- Emeritus
- Labels
- Maintainer Responsibilities
- Uphold Code of Conduct
- Prioritize Security
- Review Pull Requests
- Triage New Issues
- Triage Bug Reports
- Triage RFCs
- Releasing a new version
- Run end to end tests
- Releasing a documentation hotfix
- Maintain Overall Health of the Repo
- Manage Roadmap
- Add Continuous Integration Checks
- Negative Impact on the Project
- Becoming a maintainer
- Common scenarios
Please treat this content as a living document.
This is document explains who the maintainers are (see below), what they do in this repo, and how they should be doing it. If you're interested in contributing, see CONTRIBUTING.
| Maintainer | GitHub ID | Affiliation |
|---|---|---|
| Heitor Lessa | heitorlessa | Amazon |
| Alexander Melnyk | am29d | Amazon |
| Michal Ploski | mploski | Amazon |
| Simon Thulbourn | sthulb | Amazon |
Previous active maintainers who contributed to this project.
| Maintainer | GitHub ID | Affiliation |
|---|---|---|
| Tom McCarthy | cakepietoast | MongoDB |
| Nicolas Moutschen | nmoutschen | Apollo |
These are the most common labels used by maintainers to triage issues, pull requests (PR), and for project management:
| Label | Usage | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| triage | New issues that require maintainers review | Issue template |
| bug | Unexpected, reproducible and unintended software behavior | PR/Release automation; Doc snippets are excluded; |
| not-a-bug | New and existing bug reports incorrectly submitted as bug | Analytics |
| documentation | Documentation improvements | PR/Release automation; Doc additions, fixes, etc.; |
| feature-request | New or enhancements to existing features | Issue template |
| typing | New or enhancements to static typing | Issue template |
| RFC | Technical design documents related to a feature request | Issue template |
| bug-upstream | Bug caused by upstream dependency | |
| help wanted | Tasks you want help from anyone to move forward | Bandwidth, complex topics, etc. |
| need-customer-feedback | Tasks that need more feedback before proceeding | 80/20% rule, uncertain, etc. |
| need-more-information | Missing information before making any calls | |
| need-documentation | PR is missing or has incomplete documentation | |
| need-issue | PR is missing a related issue for tracking change | Needs to be automated |
| need-rfc | Feature request requires a RFC to improve discussion | |
| pending-release | Merged changes that will be available soon | Release automation auto-closes/notifies it |
| revisit-in-3-months | Blocked issues/PRs that need to be revisited | Often related to need-customer-feedback, prioritization, etc. |
| breaking-change | Changes that will cause customer impact and need careful triage | |
| do-not-merge | PRs that are blocked for varying reasons | Timeline is uncertain |
| size/XS | PRs between 0-9 LOC | PR automation |
| size/S | PRs between 10-29 LOC | PR automation |
| size/M | PRs between 30-99 LOC | PR automation |
| size/L | PRs between 100-499 LOC | PR automation |
| size/XL | PRs between 500-999 LOC, often PRs that grown with feedback | PR automation |
| size/XXL | PRs with 1K+ LOC, largely documentation related | PR automation |
| tests | PRs that add or change tests | PR automation |
<utility> |
PRs related to a Powertools utility, e.g. parameters, tracer |
PR automation |
| feature | New features or minor changes | PR/Release automation |
| dependencies | Changes that touch dependencies, e.g. Dependabot, etc. | PR/ automation |
| github-actions | Changes in GitHub workflows | PR automation |
| github-templates | Changes in GitHub issue/PR templates | PR automation |
| internal | Changes in governance and chores (linting setup, baseline, etc.) | PR automation |
Maintainers are active and visible members of the community, and have maintain-level permissions on a repository. Use those privileges to serve the community and evolve code as follows.
Be aware of recurring ambiguous situations and document them to help your fellow maintainers.
Model the behavior set forward by the Code of Conduct and raise any violations to other maintainers and admins. There could be unusual circumstances where inappropriate behavior does not immediately fall within the Code of Conduct.
These might be nuanced and should be handled with extra care - when in doubt, do not engage and reach out to other maintainers and admins.
Security is your number one priority. Maintainer's Github keys must be password protected securely and any reported security vulnerabilities are addressed before features or bugs.
Note that this repository is monitored and supported 24/7 by Amazon Security, see Reporting a Vulnerability for details.
Review pull requests regularly, comment, suggest, reject, merge and close. Accept only high quality pull-requests. Provide code reviews and guidance on incoming pull requests.
PRs are labeled based on file changes and semantic title. Pay attention to whether labels reflect the current state of the PR and correct accordingly.
Use and enforce semantic versioning pull request titles, as these will be used for CHANGELOG and Release notes - make sure they communicate their intent at the human level.
TODO: This is an area we want to automate using the new GitHub GraphQL API.
For issues linked to a PR, make sure pending release label is applied to them when merging. Upon release, these issues will be notified which release version contains their change.
See Common scenarios section for additional guidance.
Manage labels, review issues regularly, and create new labels as needed by the project. Remove triage label when you're able to confirm the validity of a request, a bug can be reproduced, etc. Give priority to the original author for implementation, unless it is a sensitive task that is best handled by maintainers.
TODO: This is an area we want to automate using the new GitHub GraphQL API.
Make sure issues are assigned to our board of activities and have the right status.
Use our labels to signal good first issues to new community members, and to set expectation that this might need additional feedback from the author, other customers, experienced community members and/or maintainers.
Be aware of casual contributors and recurring contributors. Provide the experience and attention you wish you had if you were starting in open source.
See Common scenarios section for additional guidance.
Be familiar with our definition of bug. If it's not a bug, you can close it or adjust its title and labels - always communicate the reason accordingly.
For bugs caused by upstream dependencies, replace bug with bug-upstream label. Ask the author whether they'd like to raise the issue upstream or if they prefer us to do so.
Assess the impact and make the call on whether we need an emergency release. Contact other maintainers when in doubt.
See Common scenarios section for additional guidance.
RFC is a collaborative process to help us get to the most optimal solution given the context. Their purpose is to ensure everyone understands what this context is, their trade-offs, and alternative solutions that were part of the research before implementation begins.
Make sure you ask these questions in mind when reviewing:
- Does it use our RFC template?
- Does the match our Tenets?
- Does the proposal address the use case? If so, is the recommended usage explicit?
- Does it focus on the mechanics to solve the use case over fine-grained implementation details?
- Can anyone familiar with the code base implement it?
- If approved, are they interested in contributing? Do they need any guidance?
- Does this significantly increase the overall project maintenance? Do we have the skills to maintain it?
- If we can't take this use case, are there alternative projects we could recommend? Or does it call for a new project altogether?
When necessary, be upfront that the time to review, approve, and implement a RFC can vary - see Contribution is stuck. Some RFCs may be further updated after implementation, as certain areas become clearer.
Some examples using our initial and new RFC templates: #92, #94, #95, #991, #1226
Firstly, make sure the commit history in the develop branch (1) it's up to date, (2) commit messages are semantic, and (3) commit messages have their respective area, for example feat(logger): <change>, chore(ci): ...).
Found typos or unclear commit messages?
Reword through rebase and push with --force-with-lease once you're confident. This will ensure CHANGELOG is always clear for customers looking to understand what changed in between releases - was that a bug? what new features and for which utility?
Looks good, what's next?
The only step is to draft and publish a good release notes, everything else is automated.
Visit the Releases page and choose the edit pencil button.
Make sure the tag field reflects the new version you're releasing, the target branch field is set to develop, and release title matches your tag e.g., v1.26.0.
You'll notice we group all changes based on their labels like feature, bug, documentation, etc.
I spotted a typo or incorrect grouping - how do I fix it?
Edit the respective PR title and update their labels. Then run the Release Drafter workflow to update the Draft release.
All looking good, what's next?
The best part comes now. Replace the placeholder [Human readable summary of changes] with what you'd like to communicate to customers what this release is all about. Rule of thumb: always put yourself in the customers shoes.
These are some questions to keep in mind when drafting your first or future release notes:
- Can customers understand at a high level what changed in this release?
- Is there a link to the documentation where they can read more about each main change?
- Are there any graphics or code snippets that can enhance readability?
- Are we calling out any key contributor(s) to this release?
- All contributors are automatically credited, use this as an exceptional case to feature them
Once you're happy, hit Publish release 🎉🎉🎉.
This will kick off the Publishing workflow and within a few minutes you should see the latest version in PyPi, and all issues labeled as pending-release will be closed and notified.
TODO: Include information to verify SAR and Lambda Layers deployment; we're still finalizing Lambda Layer automated deployment in GitHub Actions - ping @am29d when in doubt.
In order to run end to end tests you need to install CDK CLI first and bootstrap your account with cdk bootstrap command. For additional details follow documentation.
To run locally, export AWS_PROFILE environment variable and run make e2e tests. To run from GitHub Actions, use run-e2e-tests workflow and pick the branch you want to run tests against.
NOTE: E2E tests are run as part of each merge to develop branch.
You can rebuild the latest documentation without a full release via this GitHub Actions Workflow. Choose Run workflow, keep develop as the branch, and input the latest Powertools version available.
This workflow will update both user guide and API documentation.
TODO: Coordinate renaming
developtomain
Keep the develop branch at production quality at all times. Backport features as needed. Cut release branches and tags to enable future patches.
See Roadmap section
Ensure the repo highlights features that should be elevated to the project roadmap. Be clear about the feature’s status, priority, target version, and whether or not it should be elevated to the roadmap.
Add integration checks that validate pull requests and pushes to ease the burden on Pull Request reviewers. Continuously revisit areas of improvement to reduce operational burden in all parties involved.
Actions that negatively impact the project will be handled by the admins, in coordination with other maintainers, in balance with the urgency of the issue. Examples would be Code of Conduct violations, deliberate harmful or malicious actions, spam, monopolization, and security risks.
In 2023, we will revisit this. We need to improve our understanding of how other projects are doing, their mechanisms to promote key contributors, and how they interact daily.
We suspect this process might look similar to the OpenSearch project.
These are recurring ambiguous situations that new and existing maintainers may encounter. They serve as guidance. It is up to each maintainer to follow, adjust, or handle in a different manner as long as our conduct is consistent
A contribution can get stuck often due to lack of bandwidth and language barrier. For bandwidth issues, check whether the author needs help. Make sure you get their permission before pushing code into their existing PR - do not create a new PR unless strictly necessary.
For language barrier and others, offer a 1:1 chat to get them unblocked. Often times, English might not be their primary language, and writing in public might put them off, or come across not the way they intended to be.
In other cases, you may have constrained capacity. Use help wanted label when you want to signal other maintainers and external contributors that you could use a hand to move it forward.
When in doubt, use need-more-information or need-customer-feedback labels to signal more context and feedback are necessary before proceeding. You can also use revisit-in-3-months label when you expect it might take a while to gather enough information before you can decide.
We credit all contributions as part of each release note as an automated process. If you find contributors are missing from the release note you're producing, please add them manually.
A bug produces incorrect or unexpected results at runtime that differ from its intended behavior. Bugs must be reproducible. They directly affect customers experience at runtime despite following its recommended usage.
Documentation snippets, use of internal components, or unadvertised functionalities are not considered bugs.
Always favor mentoring issue authors to contribute, unless they're not interested or the implementation is sensitive (e.g., complexity, time to release, etc.).
Make use of help wanted and good first issue to signal additional contributions the community can help.
Try offering a 1:1 call in the attempt to get to a mutual understanding and clarify areas that maintainers could help.
In the rare cases where both parties don't have the bandwidth or expertise to continue, it's best to use the revisit-in-3-months label. By then, see if it's possible to break the PR or issue in smaller chunks, and eventually close if there is no progress.