WildFly Pull Request Standards and Guidelines
While a complete git tutorial is far, far out of scope of this guide, there are a few important rules and guidelines to adhere to when creating a pull request for WildFly or one of its constituent or related sub-projects.
1. Describe the pull request adequately
The description should include a JIRA number directly from the project in question, whose corresponding JIRA issue will in turn have been linked to the pull request you are just now creating. The description should also include a decent, human-readable summary of what is changing. Proper spelling and grammar is a plus!
2. Make sure it builds and tests pass first
It is highly annoying to reviewers when they find they've spent a great deal of time reviewing some code only to discover that it doesn't even compile. In particular, it's common for a patch to trip CheckStyle if it hadn't been previously compile-tested at the least.
While it is tempting to rely on the automated CI/GitHub integration to do our build and test for us (and I'm guilty of having done this too), it generally just causes trouble, so please don't do it!
3. Separate your changes - but not too much
This comes directly from , and I agree with it 100% (where the source document says "patch", think "commit"):
Separate each logical change into a separate patch.
For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two or more patches. If your changes include an API update, and a new driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches.
On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files, group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change is contained within a single patch.
The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable on its own merits.
If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X" in your patch description.
When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to ensure that [WildFly] builds and runs properly after each patch in the series. Developers using "git bisect" to track down a problem can end up splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you introduce bugs in the middle. If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches, then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
I also want to emphasize how important it is to separate functional and *non-functional* changes. The latter category includes reformatting (which generally should *not* be done without a strong justification).
4. Avoid massive and/or "stream of consciousness" branches
We all know that development can sometimes be an iterative process, and we learn as we go. Nonetheless, we do not need or want a complete record of all the highs and lows in the history of every change (for example, an "add foobar" commit followed later by a "remove foobar" commit in the same PR) - particularly for large changes or in large projects (like WildFly proper). It is good practice for such change authors to go back and rearrange and/or restructure the commits of a pull request such that they incrementally introduce the change in a logical manner, as one single conceptual change per PR.
If a PR consists of dozens or hundreds of nontrivial commits, you will want to strongly consider dividing it up into multiple PRs, as PRs of this size simply cannot be effectively reviewed. They will either be merged without adequate review, or outright ignored or closed. Which one is worse, I leave to your imagination.
5. Pay attention and respond to review comments
While in general it is my experience that WildFly contributors are good about this, I'm going to quote this passage from  regardless:
Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in which the patch can be improved. You must respond to those comments; ignoring reviewers is a good way to get ignored in return. [...]
Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them for their time. Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and reviewers sometimes get grumpy. Even in that case, though, respond politely and address the problems they have pointed out.
In addition, when something needs to be changed, the proper manner to do so is generally to modify the original commit, not to add more commits to the chain to fix issues as they're reported. See (4).
6. Don't get discouraged
It may come to pass that you have to iterate on your pull request many times before it is considered acceptable. Don't be discouraged by this - instead, consider that to be a sign that the reviewers care highly about the quality of the code base. At the same time though, consider that it is frustrating for reviewers to have to say the same things over and over again, so please do take care to provide as high-quality submissions as possible, and see (5)!
7. You can review code too!
You don't have to be an official reviewer in order to review a pull request. If you see a pull request dealing with an area you are familiar with, feel free to examine it and comment as needed. In addition, *all* pull requests need to be reviewed for basic (non-machine-verifiable) correctness, including noticing bad code, NPE risks, and anti-patterns as well as "boring stuff" like spelling and grammar and documentation.
8. On major refactorings
When doing major and/or long-term refactors, while rare, it is possible that the above constraints become impractical, especially with regard to grouping changes. In this case, you can use a work branch on a (GitHub) fork of WildFly, applying the above rules in micro-scale to just that branch. In this case you could possibly ask a reviewer to also review some or all of the pull requests to that branch. Merge commits would then be used to periodically synchronize with upstream.
In this way, when the long-term branch is ready to "come home" to the main branch, the reviewers may have a good idea that the (potentially quite numerous) changes in the work branch have been reviewed already.